O.k here we go...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

To be honest I've been itchin to get this one out there for a while. Where do you stand?

 

blah blah blah is not a testable theory, therefore it is not science.

To count the number of times I've encountered coments like these would take a lifetime!

 

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but "Bupkis", faith or fantasy? Am I right in my understanding so far? (This is my impression when I hear/read comments like these)

 

Then tell me...(how to put this)....How does science have any business whatsoever in things such as the begining of existance for example?

Seeing as mankind will never know the answer and there is no possible way to test or prove any theory pertaining to it.

 

For all of it's griping about religion science has just as many contradictions in it's theories and laws (for lack of a better word).

 

For example it's impossible for matter to travel a the the speed of light...light is matter!

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed...Energy always involves matter*....(without matter there is no energy)....the universe is made up of matter (where'd it come from)...tricky one! *(electricity is electrons, heat is light which is made up of photons, and motion requires that something (matter) be moving)

 

I could go on and on but I won't...I often find myself contemplating things like this and I have no answers...And please please please do not take this as an endorsement for either side of any debate as to the validity of either....Though I do believe it's time for the scientific community as a whole to accept that to believe in scientific theories that are impossible to prove is more religion (blind faith) than science and therefore it has no business attepting to pass these theories off as scientific fact (or even scientific in general)....

 

These are the types of things that damage the credibility of the scientific community.

 

It's time to make sure that what is presented to the masses as fact actually is factual, provable, proven, and accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

To be honest I have created this thread for the open discussion of What exactly is REAL science and why discrepancies in theory do not disqualify certain theories as being (un)scientific and instead relegate them to religion (faith) or at the very least unscientific (not true science and therefore not admissible as scientific or fact in discussion). The Big Bang for example is according to

not a testable theory, therefore it is not science.

is either religion or unscientific and is no more a proveable theory than the theory of creationism. (I hope this is what I mean....creationism refers to the belief of a universe created by a god type being right??)

[alexander]

My two cents into this:

 

Every scientific fact, outside of observable ones, that we know today was at some point, a theory that someone could not prove. I do not think that theorizing is not unscientific, most great discoveries were discovered while one, bored out of their mind scientist thought up of something to work in a certain way. Then, usually months to years later, that simple idea comes out in a book, backed up by hard math, and everyone takes it as a fact.

 

Now, it would only be unfair to say that theories are always harmless. There is a barrier between a theory, and believing in something noone would even attempt to prove. For example, if you believe that everything (matter) in this world is made of microscopic giro's, well you may be called delusional, and though you are religiously following your belief, it may not be a theory that can take place in discussing, here, on these forums, per say, unless ofcourse, you are willing to battle with math and so forth to back it up. If you believe in creationism, that is fine too, there is a place to discuss that. Problem is, when people start shoving a theory as fact down someone else's throat. This is where i would stick with the Kuran in saying (and i don't take religious manuscripts literally, so my extrapolation of the teaching is) that everyone should come to their beliefs, one should never try to force them upon another.

 

Not a testable theory, may be, religion, not necessarily. What i have another big problem with is when someone shuts down an otherwise brilliant reply to one of their belief topics with "well this is what i believe". That is total bull, you are now trying to get out of the battle by closing yourself, that should be illegal, you say something stupid, now answer, or admit you were wrong, don't shut down the effort, it's not fair to the other party, who you were purposely trying to pull in, figuring that they will just agree...

 

Science, rather what is science? To me, science is a thought process, if you question, then test, then try to prove, then you are a scientist. You can, by this definition be a religious scientist. You believe in god, you test your beliefs with scriptures, and devise methods for documenting the God factor, in the end you may have valid proof that you are either wrong or right (depending on your conclusions, based on your tests), but be full, well aware that if you claim it as fact, there will always be more people, who question, then test then try to prove that you are right, or wrong. So the last quality of a scientist is that you stand behind your beliefs, but you are not closed minded about them, you address flaws in your further research, and if need be, accept your wrong. So many brilliant scientists have not gone to the last step, but in order to be the greater scientist, you must....

 

sleepy time :)

[Turtle]

In one word: Reproducibility.

 

In two words: Yin Yang.

 

In verse: What is a Circle, without a Straight Line; a Wheel, without a Yoke? :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Rather curious T. what did it say before? Also HUH?????(sorry but I don't get it.)

 

Alexander thanks for not just giving me the cookie cutter reply I usually get involving this topic.

What i have another big problem with is when someone shuts down an otherwise brilliant reply to one of their belief topics with "well this is what i believe". That is total bull,

Me too... sadly it happens alot.

 

as does this

Problem is, when people start shoving a theory as fact down someone else's throat.

Also quite agrivating which is generally why I tend to avoid threads here about ID, the origins of the universe and the like....the fact remains that no theory in this case is proveable one way or the other and very likely will never be...but look how fervently both sides argue that they're right and what they believe is fact.

 

I use this as an example because I can't think of any other that so perfectly fits what I'm trying to express not because I care either way. The Universe is here it was here billions of years before I was born and will likely be billions of years after I'm gone...big whup...but why does the scientific comunity consider creationism mythology and not scientific and Big bang theory more likely and scientific?

 

Maybe I'm trying to hard to get it I don't know.

 

But it isn't just the origins of the universe and religion debate where you find this. Sadly the Ol' brain box is being incooperatine and I'm drawing a blank at the moment...damit....I had a bunch of good ones earlier yesterday! Though the quoted below definately touches rather well on one of my points here.

 

if you believe that everything (matter) in this world is made of microscopic giro's, well you may be called delusional, and though you are religiously following your belief, it may not be a theory that can take place in discussing, here

 

If I'm right in my interpretation of the above.....gotta say I appreciate the irony of the reversal of (insert word) the above...though I'm pretty sure atoms (Gyros's) have been seen and now they're trying to figure out what those little buggers might be built from (quarks?). A little side note aint it interesting how our solar system is built kinda like an atom:)

[Turtle]

Rather curious T. what did it say before?

I removed the ampersand twixt Yin Yang; improper usage. :)

Also HUH?????(sorry but I don't get it.)

 

Sorry; that's all I got. :)

[REASON]

First of all, I wouldn't suggest that anything that is untestable is therefore religion. It may just be an idea or a fantasy, or something that exists only in your imagination. That doesn't necessarily make it religious.

 

A difference I can see between untestable scientific hypotheses and untestable religious assertions is that in science, there's an open acknowledgement that the validity of the hypotheses are unknown. They're just something to consider and may actually belong in the realm of philosophy. In science, no one is pushing people to "believe" untestable hypotheses.

 

Religious assertions, on the other hand, are promoted as the "truth" and it is expected that the congregation will accept these notions on faith. Guilt is often used to pressure those who may be skeptical to conform to a rigid belief system, and in many instances it is the lure of comfort and contentment that is attractive. There is an obvious need to build memberships around these unsupported notions that doesn't exist with the scientific community.

 

Essentially, in science there is the willingness to conceed lack of knowledge and understanding where there is no evidence, whereas religion will lay claim to truth where there is no evidence.

 

To me, the former is a more credible and honest approach.

[freeztar]

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but religion? Am I right in my understanding so far? (This is my impression when I hear/read comments like these)

 

I think REASON did a good job of explaining this.

 

Then tell me...(how to put this)....How does science have any business whatsoever in things such as the begining of existance for example?

Science is about methodically exploring human curiousity. Currently, science can make no valid claims about the beginning of existence. That doesn't stop us curious humans from trying though. ;)

Seeing as mankind will never know the answer and there is no possible way to test or prove any theory pertaining to it.

 

Prove it. :hihi: ;)

 

Some theories come close to (very convincingly) explaining how things happened after the beginning. Science typically does shy away from exploring "the beginning" simply because there is no data, only speculation.

 

For all of it's griping about religion science has just as many contradictions in it's theories and laws (for lack of a better word).

 

For example it's impossible for matter to travel a the the speed of light...light is matter!

From the wiki on matter:

Matter constitutes much of the observable universe, although again, light is not ordinarily considered matter. Unfortunately, for scientific purposes, "matter" is somewhat loosely defined. It is normally defined as anything that has mass and takes up space.

 

So, yes and no. This does not mean "contradictory" though.

Light is better thought of as energy.

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed...Energy always involves matter*....(without matter there is no energy)....the universe is made up of matter (where'd it come from)...tricky one! *(electricity is electrons, heat is light which is made up of photons, and motion requires that something (matter) be moving)

 

[math]E=mc^2[/math]

 

I could go on and on but I won't...I often find myself contemplating things like this and I have no answers...And please please please do not take this as an endorsement for either side of any debate as to the validity of either....Though I do believe it's time for the scientific community as a whole to accept that to believe in scientific theories that are impossible to prove is more religion (blind faith) than science and therefore it has no business attepting to pass these theories off as scientific fact (or even scientific in general)....

 

Scientific theories that are impossible to prove are not science at all, indeed. :shrug:

 

These are the types of things that damage the credibility of the scientific community.

Which is one reason why people here may generally dissuade ID propagators.

 

It's time to make sure that what is presented to the masses as fact actually is factual, provable, proven, and accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That's a tall order! :eek2:

 

Are Einstein's theories "factual, provable, proven, and accurate"? 3 out of four. His theories are "provable", which have been "proven" to an extremely high degree of "accuracy". Is it "factual"? Probably not, but it works wonderfully and relatively simply, for our uses. Using his theories (which were originally unproven), Einstein's ideas allowed scientists and engineers, many years later, to maneuver spacecraft to accurately perform gravitational assists.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

First off....

 

I'm still struggling with accurate wording...for instance there's got to be a word more suitable than religion (not really the word I wanted to use but it won the coin toss)...superstition might be better I think but who knows:shrug:...It never ceases to amaze me how even one word can trip up what you're trying to get out...just as bad as drawing total blank right in the middle of typing:doh:

 

On the upside though judging by all of you're replies you've at least got a pretty good idea of what I intended to ask and convey. (Sorry folks more RIGHT word problems)

 

They really are very well thought out and to the point...Very much appreciated on both counts...It's always nice to read a post once and actually understand exactly what was said without having to reread a few times just to kinda get it:) Thanks.

 

Now...

 

Are Einstein's theories "factual, provable, proven, and accurate"? 3 out of four. His theories are "provable", which have been "proven" to an extremely high degree of "accuracy". Is it "factual"? Probably not,

 

I'm satisfied with three to me those three are enough to consider something reasonably factual....which I guess would make it redundant in my post.

 

It just bothers me when I see all of the BS that is passed off as scientific fact when in fact it's untested and unproven.....Ie. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light (really how did they test this one), there's no such thing as perpetual motion (have they ever seen an electron circling in an atom stop, and if this is true doesn't that mean as time progresses we are slowly slowing down and drifting inexorably closer to the Sun in massive slow spiraling circles getting closer and closer every year and therefore warmer:eek2:), etc.etc.

 

I'm sorry if I seem a bit gruff and I know these aren't the best examples but they'll do for now.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned above. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally."

- Einstein

[InfiniteNow]

Just to be a bit pedantic...

 

E=mc² is the simplified version of the equation.

 

 

In it's more appropriate form, the equation is actually:

 

[math]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/math]

 

 

 

Mass energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Boerseun]

If something is not scientifically provable, then yes, it is "religion" in some sort of a way, because the only way you could believe in the truth of an unprovable concept requires a leap of faith.

 

The Big Bang theory is simply an extrapolation of what you'd get if you reverse the Hubble Flow backwards in time. The Hubble Flow is empirical, and the unavoidable conclusion of all matter flying apart, is that at some stage everything was clumped together.

 

What caused that particular clump to explode, is anybody's guess, and science can only hypothesize about it.

 

It is not, however, to say that we won't find the actual cause of it tomorrow.

 

Believing in the Truth of the Big Bang is scientific, due to the empirical nature of the evidence, and the strength of the theories supporting it. What caused the Big Bang, is an entirely different matter, though.

[sanctus]

ADMIN interjection: if I remember right threads in this forum get deleted after a few days of no one posting so in agreement with DD I move it, but since DD gave me the free choice to move it where I think it fits I move it to philosophy of science. Hope it is agreed.

[jedaisoul]

For all of it's griping about religion science has just as many contradictions in it's theories and laws (for lack of a better word). For example it's impossible for matter to travel a the the speed of light...light is matter!

This point has already been picked up, but I would suggest that if you are going to comment on scientific ideas then you need to understand the terminology. Light is a physical entity. Physical entities include material entities (matter), electromagnetic phenomena (light and magnetism) and gravity. Light is not a material entity.

 

Similarly, the assertion that matter is a form of energy does not mean that energy is a form of matter. If that does not make sense, then I suggest looking up "Logical Fallacies" in Wikipedia.

 

I hope these comments will be received in the friendly manner they are intended.

[modest]

Good discussion DFINITLYDISTRUBD.

 

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but religion?

 

I think science should be held to this standard. It should be held to the scientific method, and for the most part, I think it strictly is. Scientists are more critical than anyone about enforcing what you say here.

 

While religion or superstition clearly isn’t held to this same standard - I don’t think (as others have said) the ‘testable’ or ‘falsifiable’ condition is too awfully useful in defining religion. Something could be a ‘religious truth’ and yet be falsifiable and even proven wrong. Something else could be untestable yet fall well outside religion. So, “testable” and “religious” surely have some different ground.

 

Then tell me...(how to put this)....How does science have any business whatsoever in things such as the begining of existance for example?

 

Observations today can agree with a model of conditions very shortly after the big bang. That is valid. It is often pointed out that the big bang theory does not claim to know what came before the singularity or what exists outside our visible universe. Until such things are testable they are purposely excluded from standard cosmology.

 

Seeing as mankind will never know the answer and there is no possible way to test or prove any theory pertaining to it.

 

I think intent counts for something. It seems the objective of science is always to create a hypothesis that can be tested either being tested successfully and becoming a good theory or tested unsuccessfully and becoming trash. That is fundamental to science. Just as fundamental to religion is how its principles should never be tested. It is spelled out as a commandment in the Torah showing that the idea goes way back:

 

Ye shall not try [test, tempt, assay, prove (Hebrew: nacah)] the LORD your God

 

which is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. One system explicitly says ideas have to be tested while the other explicitly says they should never be tested.

 

For all of it's griping about religion science has just as many contradictions in it's theories and laws (for lack of a better word).

 

I think this is missing the innate differences between the two. Science goes to such great lengths to try and find contradictory observations with which to amend laws and theories. New information that leads to inconsistency with current theory is not only welcome, it is sought with great effort. They’re spending 10 billion dollars to build the LHC. They’re basically trying to break the standard model of particle physics at any cost. Compare this to religion which does nothing to investigate inconsistencies in dogma. Historically religion and superstition reward such investigations into contradictions with pain and death. The difference is huge and absolutely fundamental.

 

For example it's impossible for matter to travel a the the speed of light...light is matter!

 

Special relativity is a very good example of a testable hypothesis that upset an old law and brought about even more testable things like GR and quantum electrodynamics. This would only seem to support the usefulness of the scientific method.

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed...Energy always involves matter*....(without matter there is no energy)....the universe is made up of matter (where'd it come from)...tricky one! *(electricity is electrons, heat is light which is made up of photons, and motion requires that something (matter) be moving)

 

The only problematic thing I see is “where’d [the universe’s matter] come from?” That is not a bad philosophical question but I don’t think it is something a scientific theory can address with our current knowledge.

 

Though I do believe it's time for the scientific community as a whole to accept that to believe in scientific theories that are impossible to prove is more religion (blind faith) than science and therefore it has no business attepting to pass these theories off as scientific fact (or even scientific in general)....

 

I was just watching a program on the History Channel the other day where some physicist was faulting string theory for just these reasons you point out. He actually said it isn’t a scientific theory but is rather religion because it has yet to make any predictions to test. Scientists are the first to point that out when it is the case.

 

These are the types of things that damage the credibility of the scientific community.

 

I think the perception that theories like evolution or standard cosmology are baseless or based on ad hoc convention is so much worse than the truth of the matter. These theories have made good predictions that have been subsequently tested. They are internally consistent, agree with observation, and produce useful results. Whatever people’s problem with these theories or science itself - I don’t see how the problem could be that it’s not testable.

 

It's time to make sure that what is presented to the masses as fact actually is factual, provable, proven, and accurate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When observation confirms a theory I don’t think it would be helpful to present it as proven or fact. There are good theories that are confirmed by observation and as always are subject to further investigation. I don’t think it is the job of science to persuade religion nor is it usually even possible regardless of how well the theory is confirmed or presented.

 

The Big Bang for example is according to is either religion or unscientific and is no more a proveable theory than the theory of creationism. (I hope this is what I mean....creationism refers to the belief of a universe created by a god type being right??)

 

This is wrong. The big bang theory describes the history of the universe. The visible universe was a very small and very dense place 13.7 billion years ago. It has evolved since then like the big bang model describes. We know because there is evidence (quite a bit of it). To say this is unscientific is far off the mark. The theory has made predictions that have been confirmed. Evidence and observation are continually agreeing with the theory. This is good science.

 

the fact remains that no theory in this case is proveable one way or the other and very likely will never be...but look how fervently both sides argue that they're right and what they believe is fact.

 

Supporting the big bang has nothing to do with where the universe came from. I would really suggest you read nasa’s introduction to BBT:

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

because it addresses that kind of misconception. I’ll quote them:

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

and:

The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon

 

You are scolding science for doing something that it persistently avoids doing.

 

I use this as an example because I can't think of any other that so perfectly fits what I'm trying to express not because I care either way. The Universe is here it was here billions of years before I was born and will likely be billions of years after I'm gone...big whup...but why does the scientific comunity consider creationism mythology and not scientific and Big bang theory more likely and scientific?

 

Because science holds to the method that you spelled out at the beginning of the thread. BBT is successful science because it agrees with observations and experiments. It satisfies the scientific method.

 

Creationism is successful religion because it avoids any test or observation. It satisfies the old testament commandment of not trying to test for or prove God.

 

The differences between the two are so fundamental it’s a bit befuddling to see them compared in this way. The cookie cutter answer is so often repeated because it’s ture: BBT is a scientific theory based on good physics and observation while creationism has no science, no theory, no physics, and no observation on which to stand.

 

It just bothers me when I see all of the BS that is passed off as scientific fact when in fact it's untested and unproven.....Ie. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light (really how did they test this one),

 

With particles accelerated to very nearly the speed of light.

 

there's no such thing as perpetual motion (have they ever seen an electron circling in an atom stop, and if this is true doesn't that mean as time progresses we are slowly slowing down and drifting inexorably closer to the Sun in massive slow spiraling circles getting closer and closer every year and therefore warmer:eek2:),

 

Of course there is perpetual motion. Newton’s first law says: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Getting unlimited energy from a perpetual motion machine is what can’t be done.

 

etc.etc.

 

I'm sorry if I seem a bit gruff and I know these aren't the best examples but they'll do for now.

 

Examples of what? What are you trying to show - that science is no better than religion or superstition at supporting its ideas? That long-standing theories of science are not as well-supported as people think? If we were allowed to hold religion or creationism up to the same standard as the big bang or any other scientific theory then this discussion would be incidental because creationism would just instantly die.

 

-modest

 

PS - I know my reply here sounds like the same old crap rehashed at length - but it really is what I believe and I think needed to be said.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

ADMIN interjection: if I remember right threads in this forum get deleted after a few days of no one posting so in agreement with DD I move it, but since DD gave me the free choice to move it where I think it fits I move it to philosophy of science. Hope it is agreed.

Cool beans! sounds like a good home to me:)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Examples of what? What are you trying to show - that science is no better than religion or superstition at supporting its ideas?

No I'm trying to use examples to try to clarify just what is is that confuses me with regard to how it is decided what is science and what is fantasy. I wish I hadn't chosen to use the word religion or for that matter examples pertaining to religious beliefs, and I knew I'd regret it but the exact wording still eludes me, it's not so much about religion vs science as what determines which concepts are science and which aren't and why.

 

I hope these comments will be received in the friendly manner they are intended.

No problem:) If I didn't want to hear answers I may not like I would not ask questions like this to begin with.

 

PS - I know my reply here sounds like the same old crap rehashed at length - but it really is what I believe and I think needed to be said.

 

Bull plop!! See below;)

 

Thanks for all of the great replies all.:) Things are definitly getting less muddy:)