|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,939
Posts550,923
Members14,460
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,715 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,715 Likes: 114 |
I don't think anyone's confusing faith and science, just questioning the science. Matter of personal belief, but I can't agree with your last statement either...Geo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
Science is a human invention of the early 17th century. At that time it was known as "natural philosophy" and in a nutshell it strives to understand the natural world by studying the natural world, leaving out divine intercession, revealed truth or any religious input. It deals strictly with the natural world as revealed by observing and experimenting on nature.
As more expeirments are done and more observations made (on and of the n atural world) understanding changes and explanations are adopted that more closely explain the experimental and observational data.
The press often writs that "scientists believe that ...." and this is wrong - what they should write is "consistent with the most recent data, scientists say..."
There is a huge difference between a belief system and empirical knowledge of the natural world.
People often make fun of science because results and conclusions change as more data is collected and things consistent with the data of 20 years ago are now known to be wrong. But falsification is an absolute necessity of something "scientific" - one has to be able to falsify a theory or it isn't part of science. You cannot disprove the existence of god but it is conceivable to disprove the theory of evolution - just collect enough data that contradict the model. In fact, it is absolutely essential that the theory of evolution is falsifiable
Every aspect of science is, in principle, falsifiable. We just recently read that there was a possibility that neutrinos were measures as traveling faster than the speed of light. That would have falsified a prediction based on Einstein's equations, hence falsifying the equation. Every practicing scientist deals with falsifiability on an almost daily basis.
Religious beliefs are in another realm entirely and are not subject to the same rules of logic and religion is a totally separate discipline.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,058 Likes: 57
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,058 Likes: 57 |
Exactly, and that's why this is so insidious.
Even though anthropomorphic climate change is not currently able to be falsified because of too few current data points, it's still thought to be 'science'. One must take on faith it's predictions, thus it moves into the area of a belief system.
On the other hand, Big Bang cosmology HAS been falsified many times over and it's still with us because it's such a cash cow. You cannot get a grant to study anything astronomical unless you believe along the party line.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 390 Likes: 2
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 390 Likes: 2 |
"You cannot get a grant to study anything astronomical unless you believe along the party line."
How many grant applications have you had rejected?
There's no ignorance like deliberate, self-imposed ignorance.
Last edited by cpa; 03/19/12 04:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
There is no such thing as "anthropomorphic" climate change - the word means attributing human characteristics or motivations to something non-human.
And human-caused climate change can be falsified. Just collect enough data to demonstrate it's false.
And it's not a popularity poll or a political poll - if you take all the available data, how can you best explain them?
Can you refer me to scientific publications that explicitly refute "big-bang?"
Do you know the theoretical and empirical underpinnings to that theory?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408 |
"I find it funny, although sad, the unadulterated hated and derision exhibited by the left for the christian fundamentalists in the US today and yet so many of them engage in the same type of FAITH based beliefs. Like so many fundamentalists everywhere, they insist the rest of us believe along with them."
Your are confusing two very different things, faith and science. You can bank on science, not so with faith. It's clear you don't get it so I'll spell it out. You have a faith based approach to the science of climate change.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408 |
Science is a human invention of the early 17th century. At that time it was known as "natural philosophy" and in a nutshell it strives to understand the natural world by studying the natural world, leaving out divine intercession, revealed truth or any religious input. It deals strictly with the natural world as revealed by observing and experimenting on nature.
As more expeirments are done and more observations made (on and of the n atural world) understanding changes and explanations are adopted that more closely explain the experimental and observational data.
The press often writs that "scientists believe that ...." and this is wrong - what they should write is "consistent with the most recent data, scientists say..."
There is a huge difference between a belief system and empirical knowledge of the natural world.
People often make fun of science because results and conclusions change as more data is collected and things consistent with the data of 20 years ago are now known to be wrong. But falsification is an absolute necessity of something "scientific" - one has to be able to falsify a theory or it isn't part of science. You cannot disprove the existence of god but it is conceivable to disprove the theory of evolution - just collect enough data that contradict the model. In fact, it is absolutely essential that the theory of evolution is falsifiable
Every aspect of science is, in principle, falsifiable. We just recently read that there was a possibility that neutrinos were measures as traveling faster than the speed of light. That would have falsified a prediction based on Einstein's equations, hence falsifying the equation. Every practicing scientist deals with falsifiability on an almost daily basis.
Religious beliefs are in another realm entirely and are not subject to the same rules of logic and religion is a totally separate discipline. Exactly! So I would suggest that nca225 read Gnomon's post several times until he really understands it. Man made global warming is currently a hypothesis subscribed to by some number of people. That includes some scientists and a whole lot of others for whom belief in it has become a religion. As well, there are a significant number of others, scientists and non scientist, for whom the evidence put forth to date is inconclusive. Inconclusive about whether it is man made and inconclusive about whether it is even a long (in geological terms) term trend.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,513 Likes: 408 |
The Left likes to define vocabulary for the less intellectually-gifted Right, so they tell us to call them pro-choice and not pro-abortion, to call racial quotas diversity, to call discrimination in hiring affirmative action, to call the death penalty state sponsored murder, etc...
Best,
Mike
It's why they picked the word "deniers" to describe those of us who haven't bought into man made climate change. The other group that gets tagged with "deniers" are those who refute the atrocities of the nazis. They didn't just pull the word out of thin air. Good marketing! Too bad it's both cynical and revolting at the same time.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,035 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,035 Likes: 8 |
Tell me Canvas, if you were to jump as high as you can, do you have faith that you will come back to the ground are you just positive that the force of gravity will decelerate and then overcome the velocity of your jump, and then cause you to go in the opposite direction back to the ground at a rate of 9.8M/s2?
I would not call knowing that gravity is going to have an effect on your jump, "faith".
Scientists are trained in a discipline that ensures reliableness, accuracy and precision. Trusting in results attained through that discipline is not faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
canvas, I think your statement: "You have a faith based approach to the science of climate change." has no meaning. Faith is not a component of science so if someone melds the two then it isn't science so there's no issue. Sort of like matter and anti-matter annihilating each other.
There is really no contradiction between science and religious belief - they are two totally different realms of human endeavor. As a corollary we cannot use one to define or describe or criticise the other.
|
|
|
|
|
