"Well, science doesn't know everything!"

[TAILGUNNER]

very curious

science is the accepted version of truth for today, superceeding itself of the accepted versions of truth that went before

science is a method, for which you need an approach to determine a fact, with the approach being variable as thinking changes, the facts change with each new approach

statements of fact or fiction?

given religion is a non provable entity, or approach for some people. It would then take a provable entity or approach to dismiss it fully to them, and as science is only a provable entity by virtue of its approach for the times, and hence is variablility in its results over the years

Is it correct to use it as an arguement against anything? given its nature could well suggest the exact opposite in future years, when a different approach is taken and a different end result is produced, through advancements in technology or a change allowing for a different approach

I am a non believing believer btw in other words i wont know till i die and by then i wont care

To continue is it not arrogant to clearly define something as not possible? excluding other possibilities hither to unknown at the time, using a method that throughout history had a result that changed after those that used it started to use other possibilities that they became aware of in their equations

 

[Ratman_tf]

Urgh.

I'm normally not a grammar and punctuation nazi, but without periods I just couldn't follow that last post.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

EDITED it so there's every chance you can get beyond its grammatical representation and perchance read its content

is Urgh actually an accepted word? I looked it up in my various dictionaries to no avail

no points for you on scrabble

 

[apoger]

science is the accepted version of truth for today, superceeding itself of the accepted versions of truth that went before

No.
Science is a method of developing facts. It does not deal with the "truth".

science is a method, for which you need an approach to determine a fact, with the approach being variable as thinking changes, the facts change with each new approach

Facts change with new evidence. It's possible that a new "approach" developed the new evidence. Also possible not.

Is it correct to use it as an arguement against anything?

No.
"Science" is not an argument.
It is a methodology.

If you have an argument to make versus something, then you make that argument.

To continue is it not arrogant to clearly define something as not possible?

"Science" does not declare anything. It's not a living thing.
People who use scientific method might make claims, however if they are defining things as "not possible" they aren't utilizing the method properly.


Your grasp of science is as weak as your ability to capitalize and punctuate. My suggestion: Go to school.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

No.
Science is a method of developing facts. It does not deal with the "truth".

^we quibble over words

Facts change with new evidence. It's possible that a new "approach" developed the new evidence. Also possible not.

^conceivable but rare

"Science" does not declare anything. It's not a living thing.
People who use scientific method might make claims, however if they are defining things as "not possible" they aren't utilizing the method properly

^answered my question at last well done

Your grasp of science is as weak as your ability to capitalize and punctuate. My suggestion: Go to school.

^show me where i claim to be either a scientist or english teacher and i'll not mention that for a slur thats rather sad and frankly beneath me, nice effort though, my suggestion:could do better with a little more originality

Q are all newbies subjected to abuse or is this because one dared to ask a question

 

[apoger]

^we quibble over words

It's not a "quibble". There is a huge difference between fact and truth. In common discusison we can be lax and use them as synonyms, however in this forum and in this context it's wise to use the words correctly.

Facts change with new evidence. It's possible that a new "approach" developed the new evidence. Also possible not.

^conceivable but rare

We discover new things that redefine our concepts all the time.

Q are all newbies subjected to abuse or is this because one dared to ask a question

It's hardly abuse since your grasp of science, puncuation, and grammar, are lacking. By all means prove me wrong by using periods and capital letters.

Please feel free to "dare" to ask questions, that's what this forum is all about. I am however reminded of this saying: "You cannot reasonably expect other people to show you more respect than you show for yourself".

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's just a big appeal to ignorance, they are trying to state that since mankind hasn't discovered all knowledge, then their "god" or other beliefs are rational and true.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

It's hardly abuse since your grasp of science, puncuation, and grammar, are lacking. By all means prove me wrong by using periods and capital letters

^nah i'll prove you wrong by reposting your abuse

'Your grasp of science is as weak as your ability to capitalize and punctuate. My suggestion: Go to school.'

And then if you'd care to highlight where its specified you have to hold a doctorate in science and the english language to post on here

i'd be more than grateful

If you cannot i'll understand that your just one of those sad types that argues for arguements sake and promptly ignore you

____________________________________________

thaiboxerken

It's just a big appeal to ignorance, they are trying to state that since mankind hasn't discovered all knowledge, then their "god" or other beliefs are rational and true.

^I dont have a 'god' and my only belief is i am alive well and here today, a fairly rational and true statement

____________________________________________

since this section is obviously the sounding ground for judgemental petty bigots i'll leave you to it

 

[Tricky]

Facts change with new evidence. It's possible that a new "approach" developed the new evidence. Also possible not.

Umm... it's possibly not. When criticizing another's grammar and spelling, it is always best you do not also err.

But Tailgunner is right. You are merely arguing semantics. The words "facts" and "truth" are often used interchangeably. One might argue that science does not deal with facts either, but only evidence. "Facts" do not change, or they would not be facts.

Stop being such a jerk. We need all the thinking people here we can get.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Facts change with new evidence. It's possible that a new "approach" developed the new evidence. Also possible not.

Hmmm . . this seems basically correct to me. Facts change depending on the theoretical interpretation we employ.

 

[carrot]

Facts change depending on the theoretical interpretation we employ.

No. The interpretation one uses is supported or not supported by the facts in the case. If I find some new fact, such as that a certain type of bacteria survives in a different environment than my theory says it should, I must change the theory to fit the newfound facts.

Only the interpretation changes. The facts remain the same.

 

[Toastrider]

Actually, the term 'truth' is a little closer than you might expect. The problem is the language and vocabulary we use.

The English language does not have a word for 'the absolute, stone-cold truth of things'. Like 'if you drop something, it falls (presuming you're on a planet)'. Or 'a man cannot survive without a steady supply of oxygen'.

Amusingly, if you ever read the Star Trek novel Spock's World, the Vulcans -do- have a word for this concept: 'cthia', which translates as 'reality-truth'. Paraphrased from the book:

"It is the way things -are-, not how we want them to be, or wish they were."

ST may be potboiler sci-fi, but at least the Vulcans practice logic...

...of course, they also practice psionics, too.

--Toasty

 

[Interesting Ian]

No. The interpretation one uses is supported or not supported by the facts in the case. If I find some new fact, such as that a certain type of bacteria survives in a different environment than my theory says it should, I must change the theory to fit the newfound facts.

Only the interpretation changes. The facts remain the same.

No, it's a complex interplay.

 

[carrot]

No, it's a complex interplay.

What, exactly, does that mean? Please, be specific.

 

[Interesting Ian]

What, exactly, does that mean? Please, be specific.

It's a difficult complex subject and not something to give a snap answer to. You really need to read up on something which goes into a little more detail then I'm prepared to type on a message board.

 

[DaveW]

It's a difficult complex subject and not something to give a snap answer to. You really need to read up on something which goes into a little more detail then I'm prepared to type on a message board.

Nice (and by that I mean, well, not really nice at all, but rather, weak) dodge. You could always link something, since we are using this magical internet to converse! (Or is that magickal?)

 

[carrot]

It's a difficult complex subject and not something to give a snap answer to. You really need to read up on something which goes into a little more detail then I'm prepared to type on a message board.

Save us from condescension.

Okay, I'll dumb it down for you: there are two choices here.
1) Facts are unchanged despite various theories to explain them being applied and discarded.

2) Facts are changed when differing theories are applied to explain them.

It seems you are arguing 2).

 

[drkitten]

Save us from condescension.

Okay, I'll dumb it down for you: there are two choices here.
1) Facts are unchanged despite various theories to explain them being applied and discarded.

2) Facts are changed when differing theories are applied to explain them.

It seems you are arguing 2).

The problem, as almost always, comes down to an ambiguity in the language. The word "fact," in particular, can refer either to any statement believed to be true beyond controversy, or to any statement known to be true from observation. Both of these defintiions are in point of fact incorrect, but the actual definition ("a true statement") is almost useless in the real world. Most of the "facts" known to science -- for example, "the speed of light in vacuum is a constant" --- are of the first type. We have lots of experimental evidence to support it and a well-developed theory stating why it is so. We do not, however, have experimental evidence to prove it from direct observation, since we haven't observed the speed of light everywhere and everywhen. We will almost certainly never have enough observations to make most of the "facts" of science true by direct observation.

I might come up with a different theory that predicted that the speed of light in vacuum might vary under certain circumstances, and we just haven't observed those circumstances yet (or haven't recognized them).

In practice, theory and observation are very tightly tied together. Your statement "if a [...] bacteria survives in a different environment than my theory says it should, I must change the theory to fit the newfound facts," is not quite true. You can also change your definition of "bacteria," thus preserving the "truth" of your theory but changing its application. (Maybe what we thought was a bacterium is really something quite different.) Maybe the continents do move and so you can't assume that two regions separated today weren't connected millions of years ago.

The safest way of phrasing this issue is that a new theory can force a new interpretation on a given set of observations, resulting in a new set of beliefs that people consider to be true beyond controversy.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Nice (and by that I mean, well, not really nice at all, but rather, weak) dodge. You could always link something, since we are using this magical internet to converse! (Or is that magickal?)

But I don't have any decent links to hand. It would be just as easy for carrot to search than me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Save us from condescension.

LOL I am honestly not being condescending. I'm being serious

Okay, I'll dumb it down for you: there are two choices here.
1) Facts are unchanged despite various theories to explain them being applied and discarded.

2) Facts are changed when differing theories are applied to explain them.

It seems you are arguing 2).

We build up implicit low level theories about the world and interpret our sensory perceptions through such an understanding. Even our everyday observations are seen through the interpretation lens of the mind. Do we literally see a 3D world? No, our minds build it up through correlations between our visual and tactile sensations. And consider optical illusions. What we see is to a very large extent influenced by what we subconsciously expect.

And with science this gets a whole lot worse. Entirely different scientific theories employing radically differing entities can explain a given unique macroscopic state of affairs. Which one characterises reality as it really is??

As I say this is not an easy subject. You need to read up on it. It's good stuff though.