Science is close-minded

[InfiniteNow]

The "cause" of the universe is a very interesting question of philosophy, but science does not address this. Science can not answer how the universe was created.

Yet... :shrug:

 

 

We do have some theories though, and work on this subject continues. :)

[freeztar]

Yet... :lol:

 

We do have some theories though, and work on this subject continues. ;)

 

Yes, very true, thanks for the qualification IN. :)

[alexander]

Actually i will reply to the original message, if you guys don't mind, i didn't ignore your posts, but i feel the greater emotion on the original thread, therefore i shall express it (i will touch on reply discussions)

 

This claim appears in various forms around here. Is science close-minded?

You know, i was about to make this thread too, because lately, i've been reading more and more about this topic, and it seems that its almost to every other thread, every thread in the strange claims forum, where people have been posting that science is close-minded. And i'm tired of being turned away from the original intent of a topic when this get's discussed.

 

But before i say that science is NOT close-minded, and the fact that i partly agree with Reason, on the fact that science is a method, i would like to first describe the people who post comments in question.

 

First category of which falls on people with overactive imaginations. And i don't mean that in a bad way, but just because you like to read science fiction, it does not mean that you have any right to insult scientist, nor that you can easily question their motivation in responding the way they do (and that is because i don't think i'm a scientist... at least i dont think i can justify the title to myself). Listen, scientists don't mind that you believe in little green man-like creatures that visit us on these circular ships that spin and wobble in the sky, the dwell just beyond that focus area on the camera, and sometimes in the dark sky near an airforce base. There is nothing wrong in your beliefs, i don't think that i would be overgeneralizing this, but i truly think that there are other life forms out there, and i bet scientists would agree. But when you present us with a crop circle, and say, here is evidence (i know now i'm speaking on behalf of scientists), you can not assume that we will simply look at it, say "Looks good to me" and consider it a fact!!??!! Scientists try to disprove things by default, to us it is not true, until every possible other explanation is exhausted, so we laugh, because we are simply not willing to examine the evidence. Why? we have better things to do, there is only so much time to do so much stuff, if we waste it on things that are highly probably not true anyways, we won't have time to find things that may help humans, and honestly we have more prominent problems on hand, now, our supply of oil is ever-so-dwindling away, pollution is very high, we are on the brink of another evolutionary break, honestly, little green men, are not on our top list of priorities, atm.

 

Second people that say this, are the religious folk. Once again, we have no problems with you guys, if you want to think that the world is flat, we care little for it; my biggest problem is your stoopid need to preach things you believe, especially if it contradicts the math on my paper! And the more my math is correct, the more you tend to preach about what you think the right solution is. I have no problems with religion, at all, but why do you not follow the scriptures yourselves. Christians, why do you blatantly believe in Christ being God, but don't follow any of real teachings, why do you think that the Bible, undoubtably being written by people, and plagiarized in parts, and having a clear history of change, why do you insist that it's a straight word of God? You complain about being banned, but you are not willing to be open minded about your world, why should we listen to you if we know what your response is going to be; ignorant of anything of what we have told you that has REAL proof, mumbling away the scriptures, and still trying to call US?! close-minded? WTF, you believe in a handful of books, written over a few hundred years by people trying to control promitive human beings outside of law enforcement, scriptures that have time and time again proved to be wrong, scriptures that have predicted things that have never happened, and shed blood of more people then any of the major conflicts have killed? We have thousands of years worth of books, calculations, observations, explanations, backed up by sometimes not-so-simple math, and shown to work in real life, by prediction and further observation.

 

Science is not close minded, it is a methods by which an open minded individual, has to keep on being open minded, in order to describe what he observes, in an attempt to accurately predict the behaviour of his currently investigated phenomenon.

 

Stop calling us close minded, you are doing so, because your world, the world you live in, that does not follow logic, and is powered by imagination of others, seems to not comply with what we observe...

[Overdog]

An hypothesis that "God exists" is not considered scientific simply because it is not falsifiable.

 

If I search the entire universe and do not find god, the hypothesis is still not dis-proved. In fact there is no way it can be falsified.

 

On the other hand, the hypothesis that "God does not exist" can be falsified. All it takes is evidence.

[alexander]

Stop being a liberal, you obviously do not see the clear point of my post. In science, its not "if there's no proof it exists, or way to describe it, it could", science says "if there is no proof of existence, and no mathematical way to express the phenomenon, whether based on another theory, or a new one, there is a very low probability of the object's existence" which, in the simple terms, means that we don't think it exists, until there is enough evidence for us to consider the opposite.

[REASON]

On the other hand, the hypothesis that "God does not exist" can be falsified. All it takes is evidence.

 

What evidence could be provided that "God does not exist?" It is illogical to suggest that it is possible to "prove" that something does not exist.

 

Concurrently, it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.

 

It is not closed-minded if I make such a statement.

[Overdog]

What evidence could be provided that "God does not exist?" It is illogical to suggest that it is possible to "prove" that something does not exist.

 

Concurrently, it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.

 

It is not closed-minded if I make such a statement.

 

I disagree with you.

 

Suppose I assert that Hydrogen does NOT exist, then you can show me some Hydrogen, then my assertion that it does NOT exist has been demontrated to be false, has it not?

 

Perhaps you misunderstand my earlier post. I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

[Overdog]

Stop being a liberal, you obviously do not see the clear point of my post. In science, its not "if there's no proof it exists, or way to describe it, it could", science says "if there is no proof of existence, and no mathematical way to express the phenomenon, whether based on another theory, or a new one, there is a very low probability of the object's existence" which, in the simple terms, means that we don't think it exists, until there is enough evidence for us to consider the opposite.

 

Not sure if you were responding to me or someone else, but we are in total agreement here.

[alexander]

sorry, i took it the wrong way, overdog.... respect :(

 

i would only change one thing in your statement:

I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

until such time as the evidence suggests a high probability of the otherwise.

As proof is not always a clear cut act, sometimes a high probability of an event or object is all you will be able to come up with...

[REASON]

I disagree with you.

 

Suppose I assert that Hydrogen does NOT exist, then you can show me some Hydrogen, then my assertion that it does NOT exist has been demontrated to be false, has it not?

 

Perhaps you misunderstand my earlier post. I'm saying that it is not scientific to postulate that God Exists, that the scientific approach would be that God does NOT exist, until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.

 

Ok, yes I believe I did misunderstand what you were originally getting at. I definitely agree with what you are stating here.

 

And as such, I assume you would therefore agree with the second part of my post where I said:

 

Concurrently' date=' it should be understood that just because one cannot prove that something does not exist, it is a fallacy to therefore conclude that it does exist.[/quote']

[Overdog]

Ok, yes I believe I did misunderstand what you were originally getting at. I definitely agree with what you are stating here.

 

And as such, I assume you would therefore agree with the second part of my post where I said:

 

Yes, I agree. My point (which I see was perhaps a bit cryptic) was about criteria for determining whether or not an hypothesis is scientific. Falsifiability is one of them. And this is where assertions such as "God Exists" runs into trouble, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

[REASON]

Yes, I agree. My point (which I see was perhaps a bit cryptic) was about criteria for determining whether or not an hypothesis is scientific. Falsifiability is one of them. And this is where assertions such as "God Exists" runs into trouble, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

 

Well stated. :(

[Overdog]

sorry, i took it the wrong way, overdog.... respect :(

 

i would only change one thing in your statement:

 

until such time as the evidence suggests a high probability of the otherwise.

As proof is not always a clear cut act, sometimes a high probability of an event or object is all you will be able to come up with...

 

Yes, I would go futher to state that no scientific theory is ever proven to be true. Experimental results or observations confirm a theory, or dis-prove a theory, but do not prove the theory is true. That is why theories and hypothesis must be carefully stated in a particular way in order to be scientific. Proofs are in mathematics.

[alexander]

yes, and there is a separation between theories and facts, thus theory, by definition can not be proven, if it's proven, its a fact :(

[James Putnam]

Who said they are mutually exclusive? :thumbs_up

I was merely pointing out that this thread's intent is of science. For discussions of Science and God, there are other threads.

 

Then perhaps you could say something about how you view scientific knowledge. Would you include explanations of sources of force? Do you see scientific knowledge as including identities of causes for various patterns in changes of velocities?

 

 

The "cause" of the universe is a very interesting question of philosophy, but science does not address this. Science can not answer how the universe was created (if it was created). Since there is no data from the "creation", there can be no falsifiable predictions, and no legitimate scientific studies thereof.

 

Here I failed to communicate. My point does not have to do with establishing the cause for the origin of the universe. My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

 

James

[Overdog]

Assuming I understand the intent of this quote: What do you or anyone else think is the scientific reasoning for declaring that God and science are mutually exclusive? I am not asking for a description or descriptions of stereotypes of God. I want to know what is the cause or are the causes for the operation of the universe? Names, alone, of theoretically proposed causes, for me, do not fullfill this request. What is it that you or anyone knows, scientifically, about 'cause' that makes clear the nature of the cause or causes for the operation of the universe? My opinion is: We do not know what are 'causes'. It is a matter of philosophical preference and not of science to declare that one knows what is the cause or causes for the operation of the universe.

 

James

 

I will try to answer your question.

 

God is something people believe in without any evidence. Science is a methodology, or a recipe, if you will, which if followed, leads to a process. The process is a process of discovery. It is dicovering things about nature. It has nothing to do with God. The methodology of science is a set of rules that establish restrictions on what questions may be asked, and how those questions may be asked. Theories of First Causes, (such as God created the Universe) are not in the scientific domain because of the rules, which say that any scientific theory must be falsifiable, and that there is a NATURAL explanation for what we see in nature. As far as I know, there is no scientific theory which says how the universe was created.

 

So, if you (or anyone else) comes along and posits a theory that the universe was created by God, scientist are going to say prove it. As far as how the universe operates, that is entirely within the domain of science, and it is not in the rules to appeal to the supernatural to explain what we see.

 

So, some people interpret this to mean that God and Science are mutually exclusive. That is unfortunate.

[REASON]

So, some people interpret this to mean that God and Science are mutually exclusive. That is unfortunate.

 

Yes, but it is not closed-minded.

 

Well stated post, Overdog. Your writing is very clear, direct, and understandable. I appreciate that.

 

 

My interest is learning whether or not scientifically minded people here believe in basic causes such as electric charge, mass, space-time, etc. Are these accepted as purely theoretical ideas useful in physics theory or as established facts for electromagnetic effects and gravitational effects?

 

These are well stated questions, James, but I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. Are you asking if scientifically minded people believe matter, energy and time factually or theoretically exist, or are you asking if they believe there is factual knowledge of the basic causes of these things in nature? Or maybe something else I've missed?

 

Would you clarify your question?