WWTBAM Bored

about where we are, where we came from, or why we are here. Yet they insist they do while admitting they have no clue. Brilliant!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152248.htm

I'll bet they believe in the big bang and evolution, too!

And even though they continue to redefine what they 'know' because they learned what they previously 'knew' was wrong, many who have no clue what they are talking about will believe them without question.

The big chunk of the universe that is missing is probably with all of the extra socks that seem to disappear from my house.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:The big chunk of the universe that is missing is probably with all of the extra socks that seem to disappear from my house.

And those inches of circumference my pants seem to lose each year.

The scientific method involves theorizing, verifying by experiment and re-theorizing. Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Newton's laws of physics were "right" for three centuries until better methods of measurement showed tiny discrepancies which were explained by Einstein. It's entirely possible that Einstein might be proved similarly incorrect in a century or two and scientists will update his theory appropriately. Both Einstein and Newton would have approved of this.

The thought that Newton might have been incorrect didn't prevent scientists and engineers from relying on his work for centuries in designing and building everything we've used in that time period and the thought that Einstein might similarly be wrong hasn't stopped progress in this century.

Some people would rather swear blind allegiance to theories that by their very nature are incapable of being disproved because they essentially rely upon an allpowerful Deity who presumably can stop the sun, raise the dead, part an ocean and do anything on a whim. Such a Deity could certainly create and break any rules of physics and biology as desired.

Most modern scientific progress really dates from advances in aviation, nuclear theory and other fields that are roughly one century old. What we have accomplished in that time frame is amazing. But some people feel that because we haven't solved all the mysteries of the universe conclusively in that time frame that all our scientific work is mere useless guesswork.

Funny how two people can read the same article and draw very different (indeed, almost polar opposite) conclusions.

BackInTex wrote:about where we are, where we came from, or why we are here. Yet they insist they do while admitting they have no clue. Brilliant!

Science can only deal with the first two of those, not the last one - the "why" question lies firmly within the realm of theology and/or philosophy.

BackInTex wrote:I'll bet they believe in the big bang and evolution, too!

And so do many religious people, myself included.

BackInTex wrote:And even though they continue to redefine what they 'know' because they learned what they previously 'knew' was wrong, many who have no clue what they are talking about will believe them without question.

Science is all about revising what one knows.

mrkelley23 wrote:Funny how two people can read the same article and draw very different (indeed, almost polar opposite) conclusions.

You mean 'funny' like 'predictable', not 'funny' like 'ha ha', right?

What is also interesting is that I read neither of the polar posts and think I know what they say.

silverscreenselect wrote:The scientific method involves theorizing, verifying by experiment and re-theorizing. Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

Funniest voire dire I was at was when one of the lawyers asked me if 'as a scientist, could you come to a conclusion without having all the facts available?' I asked him if he ever read one of my monthly reports? Pretty good when you can get lawyers from both sides to chuckle.

earendel wrote: Science is all about revising what one knows.

Correction.

Science is all about revising what one THOUGHT it knew but was wrong.

If you are wrong then you didn't know.

Yet, scientist all say they KNOW.

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote: Science is all about revising what one knows.

Correction.

Science is all about revising what one THOUGHT it knew but was wrong.

If you are wrong then you didn't know.

Yet, scientist all say they KNOW.

So, it's kinda like their religion? They have faith in what they discover?

christie1111 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

What I find amazing is how many times scientist will revise a theory, proving something previously held up as the truth and each time folks all climb on the band wagon and believe the newest revision and will hold it up as the truth.

All the while the scientist admit by reciting the definition of 'science' as a best guess based on "what we do know, but it is just a guess, but anything else couldn't possibly be correct because they aren't guessing the same way we are."

BackInTex wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

What I find amazing is how many times scientist will revise a theory, proving something previously held up as the truth and each time folks all climb on the band wagon and believe the newest revision and will hold it up as the truth.

All the while the scientist admit by reciting the definition of 'science' as a best guess based on "what we do know, but it is just a guess, but anything else couldn't possibly be correct because they aren't guessing the same way we are."

Curious. So, how old do you think the earth is based on the Bible?

I'd like to read more about all this, but I'm late for my 10:00 leeching.

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote: Science is all about revising what one knows.

Correction.

Science is all about revising what one THOUGHT it knew but was wrong.

If you are wrong then you didn't know.

Yet, scientist all say they KNOW.

We all say we "know" something when we are only reasonably certain. One may say "I know that there's a God", but that would be a false statement. One may believe that there's a God, but knowledge of the deity is something else again. Similarly a scientist may say "I know that evolution exists" although he or she is only reasonably certain. Not only that, but there is a big difference between saying that evolution exists and understanding how it works.

Unfortunately there are "dogmatic" scientists, and they tend to get a lot of press.

BackInTex wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

What I find amazing is how many times scientist will revise a theory, proving something previously held up as the truth and each time folks all climb on the band wagon and believe the newest revision and will hold it up as the truth.

All the while the scientist admit by reciting the definition of 'science' as a best guess based on "what we do know, but it is just a guess, but anything else couldn't possibly be correct because they aren't guessing the same way we are."

It's not a "guess". It's the best explanation available that fits the facts as they are known and that can predict the outcome of future events and experiments intended to prove or disprove it. Scientists worthy of the title are able to accept the changes when events or experimental results occur that their own explanation (theory) can't, well, explain, and another explanation does it better. Other types, some scientists, some not, don't or won't accept the changes and ignore or disparage any contrary evidence (without proving it wrong).

Hence, you get arguing and argumentative scientists with competing theories who dispute each other's experimental results and interpretations (think global warming) and paradigm shifts (where a long-accepted "knowledge" gets knocked into a cocked hat by a new and very different theory that explains the observable universe better; think plate tectonics, or as an earlier example, the heliocentric solar system.)

BackInTex wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

What I find amazing is how many times scientist will revise a theory, proving something previously held up as the truth and each time folks all climb on the band wagon and believe the newest revision and will hold it up as the truth.

All the while the scientist admit by reciting the definition of 'science' as a best guess based on "what we do know, but it is just a guess, but anything else couldn't possibly be correct because they aren't guessing the same way we are."

True science never says that it possesses THE truth - that's a matter for the philosophers/theologians. What science says is that, given the data, the most reasonable explanation is X. As more data comes to light, the explanation is adjusted.

BackInTex wrote:

christie1111 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Scientists are constantly trying to incorporate all the available evidence into consistent theories and updating those when new evidence proves them wrong.

Exactly!

What I find amazing is how many times scientist will revise a theory, proving something previously held up as the truth "

I think you actually mean 'disproving'.

A scientist's job is to continually test the 'known' theories, proving and disproving them and then adjust the 'known theory'.

A true scientist would not state that they 'know' something. Just that the evidence to-date supports the theory.

And why is continually adjusting things as additional information becomes available a bad thing?

I will get an e-mail alert when someone mentions Adam and Eve riding a dinousaur to McDonald's. So I got that goin' for me...

earendel wrote:
We all say we "know" something when we are only reasonably certain. One may say "I know that there's a God", but that would be a false statement. One may believe that there's a God, but knowledge of the deity is something else again. Similarly a scientist may say "I know that evolution exists" although he or she is only reasonably certain. Not only that, but there is a big difference between saying that evolution exists and understanding how it works.

Unfortunately there are "dogmatic" scientists, and they tend to get a lot of press.

I agree completely. But there is a huge difference in the way each side portrays the other. The 'science' side laughs, scoffs, rolls their eyes in false intellectual superiority, while the 'faith' side, at least those I identify with, simply shake their heads in frustration at the arrogance.

Do I KNOW God exists? No. However, if I'm wrong, in 1,000 years my chemical makeup will be absorbed into some other organism and my wrongness won't matter. If those who hold so tightly to the science side are wrong.....

christie1111 wrote: And why is continually adjusting things as additional information becomes available a bad thing?

It not. Its just frustrating to be constantly told I'm wrong, I'm a fool, I'm a boob, all the while scientist keep finding 'new' theories and adjusting their thinking, eventually I know, coming to the same conculsion I have.

Bixby17 wrote: Curious. So, how old do you think the earth is based on the Bible?

Well the only proof I have of how old the earth is is 45 years old. My earliest memory of which I can place a date is 1962.

Other than that, including scientific data, is all faith.

BackInTex wrote:Do I KNOW God exists? No. However, if I'm wrong, in 1,000 years my chemical makeup will be absorbed into some other organism and my wrongness won't matter. If those who hold so tightly to the science side are wrong.....

Wanna make a little wager on that?

BackInTex wrote:

earendel wrote:We all say we "know" something when we are only reasonably certain. One may say "I know that there's a God", but that would be a false statement. One may believe that there's a God, but knowledge of the deity is something else again. Similarly a scientist may say "I know that evolution exists" although he or she is only reasonably certain. Not only that, but there is a big difference between saying that evolution exists and understanding how it works.

Unfortunately there are "dogmatic" scientists, and they tend to get a lot of press.

I agree completely. But there is a huge difference in the way each side portrays the other. The 'science' side laughs, scoffs, rolls their eyes in false intellectual superiority, while the 'faith' side, at least those I identify with, simply shake their heads in frustration at the arrogance.

I've known people of faith who act just the same way - scornful laughter, eye-rolling and all, when presented with scientific claims.

BackInTex wrote: Do I KNOW God exists? No. However, if I'm wrong, in 1,000 years my chemical makeup will be absorbed into some other organism and my wrongness won't matter. If those who hold so tightly to the science side are wrong.....

Depends upon what they're wrong about.

Bixby17 wrote:
Curious. So, how old do you think the earth is based on the Bible?

Curious. What's the point of this question?