#1 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

There's lots of threads dealing with things like politics, religion, and current events, but I rarely see anything dealing with science. This is sad, because the concept of science is possibly the greatest invention of the human race. And, the achievements of science have brought us from the Dark Ages to being able to master things like the atom, space travel, diseases, worldwide communications, and many more things.

This thread is dedicated to:

  • sharing your thoughts, feelings, and experiences about science
  • sharing interesting and informative links, videos, and stories
  • asking questions about science. Hopefully others can then answer them, and I will come here when I can and answer things if I'm able to, within my fields of expertise.
  • discussing the relation between science and anything else, including things like religion, politics, history, philosophy, the future of the human race, and anything else you can think of
  • basically anything else... as long as it's related to science in some way

Lastly, I want to start this off by sharing a video of the late Richard Feynman. I know it's a little long, but well worth watching all the way through especially if you're not familiar with him.

#2 Posted by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio

Did this in the past, but the intro text of this one seems a lot better.

#3 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

This is related to science I guess:

I hate seeing people argue on the vine about physics with 3 paragraph responses (at the least),because I always get damn lost and feel stupid.

-______-

lol,but I know that's not what you meant...I'm gonna leave before I get confused again.

#4 Posted by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio
#5 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5301 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone else read about the breakthrough on type 1 diabetes?

#6 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

I like this thread.

#7 Posted by Jezer (3178 posts) - - Show Bio

There is a banned TEDx called the Science Delusion. Was pretty interesting.

#8 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

I just posted this in another thread, but it occurred to me that it's entirely appropriate to also post in this thread. One of the biggest topics of argument on this forum about science is the lack of understanding about what constitutes "facts" in science. Also... that this comes up ALL THE TIME, over and over, and I find myself writing basically the same replies too many times. So, maybe we can have this here as a reference for the future. Feel free to discuss.

------

@krisboyz781 said:

Wow, there are some ignorant people in this thread. First of all, science is never set in stone. Theories are changing everyday so to the person that said to another member that he is idiotic for not believing there was a BBT sounds idiotic himself. Nothing is set in stone for science. Now to all the atheists, how would it be possible to prove that there was an omnipotent being that created everything if we don't even know what the universe is, the meaning of life, what is time and a whole bunch of other things. Now you may say that religious people are placing blind faith into something they don't know exist, but aren't you placing blind faith in believing that there was a Big Bang. There's honestly no such thing as facts in science, I'm pretty sure it was a "fact" to people before the 17th century that the world was flat. So don't try to insult somebody for believing in a higher power saying that science can't prove it when we haven't even been able to grasp even a little bit of what life, the universe, and all other things in our life are.

I'm going to give a quick reply to this even though... this has already been discussed a million times in these religion threads. But, I understand that you may not have read those posts, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. And as always, I'm not trying to convince you of anything since I know that's mostly hopeless for a lot of people and I'm simply going to throw this out there for those who are willing to listen to reason.

As such:

-Nothing is ever 100%. We can never know that anything, even what we're seeing with our eyes, is 100% true. People who use this as an argument for why a "fact" is not a fact are simply wasting their time and making a nonsensical argument. It gets you nowhere, doesnt move the discussion at all, makes no point, and is generally a fallacious argument.

-Science is never "set in stone", but scientific facts are true facts. Scientific theories like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory are FACTS because they are supported by tons of evidence and are not contradicted AT ALL by any evidence. They are as close to 100% as we can get. Yes, they are subject to change, but only in as much as they can be improved. The BBT will almost certainly never be disproved, only modified to be more accurate. That's why it's a fact.

-It may not be "idiotic" to not believe in the BBT, but it is ignorant. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's not meant as such. It's meant as a statement of fact. If you dont know something, you're ignorant about that thing. The BBT is accepted as fact by almost every single scientist on the planet. Claiming that you dont believe it is not just ignorant, but extremely arrogant. It's like me walking into an operating room and telling the doctors that they dont know how to operate on people, and that I know better than they do, even thought I dont know squat about medicine and very little about biology. If I made that claim, and people called me ignorant and idiotic, they'd be completely justified in doing so.

-Believing in the BBT is not "blind faith" nor is it, in any way, equivalent or analogous to people placing blind faith in religion. Sorry, this is also ignorant. Even a little research on Google will show you that the BBT is extremely well supported by observation, experimentation, and peer-review over decades by the entire scientific community. Dont compare science to religion, that's not going to go well for you.

-"There's honestly no such thing as facts in science"... simply, wrong. A fact is something that is true according to a vast amount of evidence, not this unrealistic definition of "100%". Oddly enough, the only people who claim that facts must be 100% are religious people who dont appear to understand the concept of adjusting your view of the world when the evidence changes. And, also conveniently enough, religious people only apply this definition of facts to things they disagree with and not their own completely-evidence-free beliefs.

-"I'm pretty sure it was a "fact" to people before the 17th century that the world was flat." ... also, wrong. People have known that the Earth is round as far back as ancient Greece. Actually, this should have been somewhat self-evident to any ancient mariner, since you can see ships or land masses disappear in the horizon as you sail away.

#9 Posted by King Saturn (225163 posts) - - Show Bio

Second Favorite Scientist Of All Time...

#10 Posted by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio
#11 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

Some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Arthur C. Clarke, on a TV show from the late 80's discussing everything from physics, to religion and God, to politics. We dont see this on TV anymore, now we get shit like Honey Boo Boo.

Damnit I just made myself depressed... =(

Anyway, enjoy!

#12 Posted by consolemaster001 (6112 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Two men walk into a bar and one of them says "i'd like some H2O.". And the second man says "I'll have some H2O2.".

The second man died.

Online
#13 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Two men walk into a bar and one of them says "i'd like some H2O.". And the second man says "I'll have some H2O2.".

The second man died.

Yeah, I've heard that one before. You have to be a real chemistry geek to get that though. =)

#15 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

What happens when you pour lava over ice? Lets find out...

For science!

#16 Posted by warlock360 (28064 posts) - - Show Bio
#17 Posted by umbrafeline (5217 posts) - - Show Bio
#18 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio
#19 Posted by umbrafeline (5217 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

@umbrafeline said:

if youre not seeing anything posted for science then you obviously have not been reading my threads. just now I posted this story http://news.yahoo.com/massive-earthquakes-volcanoes-sink-123652503.html

This, Umbra posts like 20 threads related to science a week. I've even contributed by asking for help on a research project I was working on.

^_^

Gotta give credit where credit is due. Your threads are alot more interesting than what's been posted on here so far. Especially since they're current and recent.

#21 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

I just posted this in another thread, but it occurred to me that it's entirely appropriate to also post in this thread. One of the biggest topics of argument on this forum about science is the lack of understanding about what constitutes "facts" in science. Also... that this comes up ALL THE TIME, over and over, and I find myself writing basically the same replies too many times. So, maybe we can have this here as a reference for the future. Feel free to discuss.

------

@krisboyz781 said:

Wow, there are some ignorant people in this thread. First of all, science is never set in stone. Theories are changing everyday so to the person that said to another member that he is idiotic for not believing there was a BBT sounds idiotic himself. Nothing is set in stone for science. Now to all the atheists, how would it be possible to prove that there was an omnipotent being that created everything if we don't even know what the universe is, the meaning of life, what is time and a whole bunch of other things. Now you may say that religious people are placing blind faith into something they don't know exist, but aren't you placing blind faith in believing that there was a Big Bang. There's honestly no such thing as facts in science, I'm pretty sure it was a "fact" to people before the 17th century that the world was flat. So don't try to insult somebody for believing in a higher power saying that science can't prove it when we haven't even been able to grasp even a little bit of what life, the universe, and all other things in our life are.

I'm going to give a quick reply to this even though... this has already been discussed a million times in these religion threads. But, I understand that you may not have read those posts, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. And as always, I'm not trying to convince you of anything since I know that's mostly hopeless for a lot of people and I'm simply going to throw this out there for those who are willing to listen to reason.

As such:

-Nothing is ever 100%. We can never know that anything, even what we're seeing with our eyes, is 100% true. People who use this as an argument for why a "fact" is not a fact are simply wasting their time and making a nonsensical argument. It gets you nowhere, doesnt move the discussion at all, makes no point, and is generally a fallacious argument.

-Science is never "set in stone", but scientific facts are true facts. Scientific theories like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory are FACTS because they are supported by tons of evidence and are not contradicted AT ALL by any evidence. They are as close to 100% as we can get. Yes, they are subject to change, but only in as much as they can be improved. The BBT will almost certainly never be disproved, only modified to be more accurate. That's why it's a fact.

-It may not be "idiotic" to not believe in the BBT, but it is ignorant. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's not meant as such. It's meant as a statement of fact. If you dont know something, you're ignorant about that thing. The BBT is accepted as fact by almost every single scientist on the planet. Claiming that you dont believe it is not just ignorant, but extremely arrogant. It's like me walking into an operating room and telling the doctors that they dont know how to operate on people, and that I know better than they do, even thought I dont know squat about medicine and very little about biology. If I made that claim, and people called me ignorant and idiotic, they'd be completely justified in doing so.

-Believing in the BBT is not "blind faith" nor is it, in any way, equivalent or analogous to people placing blind faith in religion. Sorry, this is also ignorant. Even a little research on Google will show you that the BBT is extremely well supported by observation, experimentation, and peer-review over decades by the entire scientific community. Dont compare science to religion, that's not going to go well for you.

-"There's honestly no such thing as facts in science"... simply, wrong. A fact is something that is true according to a vast amount of evidence, not this unrealistic definition of "100%". Oddly enough, the only people who claim that facts must be 100% are religious people who dont appear to understand the concept of adjusting your view of the world when the evidence changes. And, also conveniently enough, religious people only apply this definition of facts to things they disagree with and not their own completely-evidence-free beliefs.

-"I'm pretty sure it was a "fact" to people before the 17th century that the world was flat." ... also, wrong. People have known that the Earth is round as far back as ancient Greece. Actually, this should have been somewhat self-evident to any ancient mariner, since you can see ships or land masses disappear in the horizon as you sail away.

So....religious people do that?

All religious people and only religious people?

Anyway,where did that come from?

Not trying to derail your thread or seem disrespectful,but I genuinely want to know...

#22 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio
#23 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

------

-"There's honestly no such thing as facts in science"... simply, wrong. A fact is something that is true according to a vast amount of evidence, not this unrealistic definition of "100%". Oddly enough, the only people who claim that facts must be 100% are religious people who dont appear to understand the concept of adjusting your view of the world when the evidence changes. And, also conveniently enough, religious people only apply this definition of facts to things they disagree with and not their own completely-evidence-free beliefs.

So....religious people do that?

All religious people and only religious people?

Anyway,where did that come from?

Not trying to derail your thread or seem disrespectful,but I genuinely want to know...

It's ok, not derailing at all. Discussing this is what this thread is about.

As far as where it came from... it came from a discussion of science versus religion and the comments of one person who was saying that there are no such things as facts in science since nothing was proven to 100% certainty. This thread is not simply to post videos of sciency stuff, but also to discuss things like this topic.

What I meant was that the only people I've ever seen asking that a "fact" should be something that has to be 100% true are religious people when they attempt to say that some fact (evolution, big bang theory, age of earth, etc) that they dont believe in is not a "real" fact because it cant possibly be proven to 100% certainty. I've certainly never seen anyone with any understanding of science say such a thing.

The reason why this seems to be a typical religious argument is because they can follow up with "believing in science is just faith" which then makes it (in their minds) equivalent to believing in religion... hence their religion is equally valid to science, which is simply nonsense.

#24 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

@willpayton said:

------

-"There's honestly no such thing as facts in science"... simply, wrong. A fact is something that is true according to a vast amount of evidence, not this unrealistic definition of "100%". Oddly enough, the only people who claim that facts must be 100% are religious people who dont appear to understand the concept of adjusting your view of the world when the evidence changes. And, also conveniently enough, religious people only apply this definition of facts to things they disagree with and not their own completely-evidence-free beliefs.

So....religious people do that?

All religious people and only religious people?

Anyway,where did that come from?

Not trying to derail your thread or seem disrespectful,but I genuinely want to know...

It's ok, not derailing at all. Discussing this is what this thread is about.

As far as where it came from... it came from a discussion of science versus religion and the comments of one person who was saying that there are no such things as facts in science since nothing was proven to 100% certainty. This thread is not simply to post videos of sciency stuff, but also to discuss things like this topic.

What I meant was that the only people I've ever seen asking that a "fact" should be something that has to be 100% true are religious people when they attempt to say that some fact (evolution, big bang theory, age of earth, etc) that they dont believe in is not a "real" fact because it cant possibly be proven to 100% certainty. I've certainly never seen anyone with any understanding of science say such a thing.

The reason why this seems to be a typical religious argument is because they can follow up with "believing in science is just faith" which then makes it (in their minds) equivalent to believing in religion... hence their religion is equally valid to science, which is simply nonsense.

I agree that that is nonsense and I have seen religious people only accept science that agrees with their views,and discard others that do not.

However,I hope you don't believe that most/all religious people do this (because most certainly do not) and I hope you weren't implying that religious people are scientifically ignorant...which I don't think you were,but just in case....

#25 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

The only things you can claim as fact are laws. Because each of those thing have been witnessed to be true and are far from being subject to change within the Scientific community. Like the Law of Gravity or the Law of Conservation of mass or the Law of Chaos. Those are things that are right there in front of us.

Calling religious people ignorant because they don't believe in a certain theory is ignorant in itself. Each group is claiming something is true when there is a probability that they haven't seen it themselves. It's called a theory for a reason. The evidence that they've seen suggests a possibility of the Big Bang, but we weren't there to experience it so just plain accepting it as fact is pretty close minded. As a matter of fact, it goes against everything the Scientific mind of curiosity is. You don't just accept it. Question its possibility. The Universe is huge place and there's even more of a possibility that the Universe exploding into existence isn't true. If you go by the Laws of Energy that is in the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Alot of people on here aren't the pseudo-scientific enthusiasts they claim to be. As a matter of fact, a couple just memorize names and voila.

And lastly, I'm getting plain tired of people on here attacking religious people. Seriously, you know how hypocritical that is. If what they believe annoys you so much, then ignore it. All of you act so self righteous claiming you're not trying to offend anyone when you know pretty well that you are. Generalizing religious people and calling them zealots doesn't really help. Here's an example of the beginning of arguments on this site.

Thread-What's wrong with the concept of God?

A-"Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with God. I'm religious and I believe him. I think he's done alot for me"

B-"I don't mean to offend you, but he's obviously not real and you're wasting your time. Your belief isn't harming me, but I think alot of people like you are ignorant zealots and should advance with the rest of the world."

This is obviously exaggerated but you get the gist of it

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT:

And about the whole fact argument. Since when was a fact quantifiable. It either is or isn't based on whether you've witnessed it or have irrefutable evidence as to it's existence. Gravity is fact. Energy is fact. Mass is fact. Even the Croatian era occuring on Earth is fact. But since we live on Earth, a speck of dust within the Universe, claiming that we know what created the infinitely expanding Universe isn't fact. We haven't witnessed it, and the subject is highly debatable and often challenged. I agree, it's highly plausible, but it's not fact.

#26 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

No, I wasnt trying to say that most religious people do that. I think it's a minority, but unfortunately it can be a vocal and influential minority.

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution. How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread. Personally my opinion on that is that most religious people only accept the religion because of the social aspects and because they grew up with it. They cherry-pick the parts of the Bible (in the case of Christianity) that they accept and discard the rest, and honestly dont think that deeply about the implications of what concepts like Original Sin mean vis-a-vis other concepts like Evolution. Basically, they're not compatible.

#27 Edited by Fuchsia_Nightingale (10130 posts) - - Show Bio

Mythbusters anyone ?

Bill Nye

Doc Brown ?

#28 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

The only things you can claim as fact are laws.

This is exactly why I posted what I posted above. You are using a definition of the work "fact" that is not what scientists mean by fact. A fact is simply that which has been shown to be true to a very high degree of certainty, something that is indisputably true. And, lets not quibble about the word "indisputably". Just because one or a few people dont believe something doesnt mean it's in dispute.

@pfcoolio14 said:

Calling religious people ignorant because they don't believe in a certain theory is ignorant in itself.

I dont call people ignorant because they dont believe something. If I call them ignorant it's often because they have demonstrated that they are ignorant by making false claims. For example, saying that you dont believe the BBT is perfectly fine. Saying that the BBT is not a fact is ignorant. See the difference?

@pfcoolio14 said:

The evidence that they've seen suggests a possibility of the Big Bang, but we weren't there to experience it so just plain accepting it as fact is pretty close minded.

There is a vast amount of evidence and consensus that the Big Bang happened, which is why scientists call it a fact. Saying that "accepting it as a fact is pretty close minded" is pretty ironic. It makes me wonder if you even know what the BBT is.

@pfcoolio14 said:

And lastly, I'm getting plain tired of people on here attacking religious people. Seriously, you know how hypocritical that is. If what they believe annoys you so much, then ignore it.

There's a difference between attacking religious people and attacking the ideas that religious people put forth. If someone says something that I know is plain wrong and misleading, I will probably comment on it. This is not an "attack".

@pfcoolio14 said:

And about the whole fact argument. Since when was a fact quantifiable. It either is or isn't based on whether you've witnessed it or have irrefutable evidence as to it's existence.

We have irrefutable evidence that the Big Bang happened.

@pfcoolio14 said:

But since we live on Earth, a speck of dust within the Universe, claiming that we know what created the infinitely expanding Universe isn't fact. We haven't witnessed it, and the subject is highly debatable and often challenged. I agree, it's highly plausible, but it's not fact.

Wow, more irony.

Who said they know what created the universe? So far it's only the religious people posting throughout this forum that have done that. Funny... you seem to have a problem with claiming to know what created the universe, but you direct this at those talking about science and ignore the God posts.

#29 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I don't think you know what the scientific definition of fact is. It has never been claimed to be something that is a very high certainty and you're making that up, no offense, but that's what it clearly sounds like.

A scientific fact is any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true or any scientific observation that has not been refuted. This means it's been studied throughout the scientific community and can't be combated. The double helix structure of DNA is a fact. Four different Nucleic acids making up DNA is a fact. The structure of the cell membrane is a fact. The Big bang Theory is just that, a theory. Observational evidence of all kinds (such as the WMAP data, recession of distant galaxies, etc.) seems to support the theory, but we may never know if it actually occurred as theorized. So no, it's not the scientific fact you claim it is if you paid attention to what a scientific fact is in class.

As for me attacking those that talk about science, the only reason I do that is because they usually start the arguments when its just as easy to ignore something they obviously don't support. I gave an example of how it usually starts in my other post. Both sides are at fault, but I see who usually starts the arguments and who usually ends up offending people the most.

#30 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

@willpayton:

I don't think you know what the scientific definition of fact is. It has never been claimed to be something that is a very high certainty and you're making that up, no offense, but that's what it clearly sounds like.

A scientific fact is any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true or any scientific observation that has not been refuted. This means it's been studied throughout the scientific community and can't be combated. The double helix structure of DNA is a fact. Four different Nucleic acids making up DNA is a fact. The structure of the cell membrane is a fact. The Big bang Theory is just that, a theory. Observational evidence of all kinds (such as the WMAP data, recession of distant galaxies, etc.) seems to support the theory, but we may never know if it actually occurred as theorized. So no, it's not the scientific fact you claim it is if you paid attention to what a scientific fact is in class.

I'm pretty sure I DO know the definition of "scientific fact", and the definition I gave accurately describes it. The definition you gave also accurately describes it. By either or both definition, the Big Bang theory is a fact. Yes, it's not a single verifiable observation, but that's only the most basic definition of a fact. Facts can also be complex explanations of a number of verifiable observations.

Unfortunately this seems to come up over and over, but I guess I have to go over it one more time. A scientific theory like the Big Bang is not "just a theory" as you put it. A scientific theory like this is basically a fact. Since you seem to be a little confused about the difference between a fact, a law, and a theory, I think this description from Wikipedia explains it fairly well:

Theories and laws

See also: Scientific law

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, it is also a fact. The Big Bang Theory is a theory, also a fact. The Germ Theory of Disease is a theory, and also a fact. There is no dispute in the scientific community, it is agreed that these things are true. The only dispute appears to be among those who dont know much about science.

So yes, it is a scientific fact as I claim, and I'm pretty sure I know more about the subject than you do.

#31 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

No, I wasnt trying to say that most religious people do that. I think it's a minority, but unfortunately it can be a vocal and influential minority.

Ok,just wanted to make sure and that is,unfortunately,true.

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution.

Correct.

How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread.

Agreed,not the time/place...however,I am not sure how it would exactly contradict it,at the same time,I am not exactly sure how it would fit in....

Personally my opinion on that is that most religious people only accept the religion because of the social aspects and because they grew up with it.

That can't really be said for most because,at the same time,the exact same thing can be said for atheists and people of all religious views.

They cherry-pick the parts of the Bible (in the case of Christianity) that they accept and discard the rest, and honestly dont think that deeply about the implications of what concepts like Original Sin mean vis-a-vis other concepts like Evolution. Basically, they're not compatible.

Many Christians DO do that,and especially,even if contradictory to their views,just discard the parts that aren't agreeable.

However,keep in mind that many atheists do that as well. In challenging the bible,they often pick and choose certain parts of it,even when in many cases,the verse is taken out of context basically...and thus can be given a new meaning.

And this is not what every atheist does....that kinda goes without saying.

#32 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14 said:

@umbrafeline said:

if youre not seeing anything posted for science then you obviously have not been reading my threads. just now I posted this story http://news.yahoo.com/massive-earthquakes-volcanoes-sink-123652503.html

This, Umbra posts like 20 threads related to science a week. I've even contributed by asking for help on a research project I was working on.

^_^

True. Your articles where also helpful in my exam preparation. I do read most of them, its just that, I post in ones, where I have something witty and showing offy to say >:P

#34 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Since we're using sources now, I'll give you information from two different articles from Wikipedia that directly contradict what you said.

Fact in science

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact sometimes referred to as empirical evidence is central to building scientific theories and fundamental questions regarding the natural phenomena of Nature, scientific method, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation (details below). Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21]

This shows that scientific fact and thoery are different. The next article does so even more thoroughly

Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy(among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

Wikipedia is not a valid source

I'm getting all my information from my AP Bio Theory Textbook. Theories aren't fact as they explain observations. They're unclear truths whereas facts are what they are. Facts.

Since scientists see that the Galaxies are getting further apart as well as the WMAP data they propose the Big Bang theory. People agree with it because it explains a large body of facts, but it isn't a fact itself.

The theory of evolution explains why adaption has taken place in animals as well as certain differences in ancestors of that certain animal which are facts, but the theory itself isn't a fact. The Big Bang theory explains the cosmic microwave background and recession of distant galaxies. Those are facts. But the theory itself isn't a fact. The germ theory of disease explains why humans get disease, which is a fact, but isn't a fact itself. A theory can embody a large set of statements, which can grow as the theory expands to explain more observations, more facts. It explains facts. It cannot "become" a fact.

As for you knowing more on the subject than I do, whatever floats your boat.

#35 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution.

How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread.

Agreed,not the time/place...however,I am not sure how it would exactly contradict it,at the same time,I am not exactly sure how it would fit in....

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

Personally my opinion on that is that most religious people only accept the religion because of the social aspects and because they grew up with it.

That can't really be said for most because,at the same time,the exact same thing can be said for atheists and people of all religious views.

You can say the same thing about both groups and it could be true for both groups. Why not? It seems logical that most people would grow up to believe what they were taught. The main difference is that atheism isnt a believe system, it's a lack of a believe system, and as such it's the default for every human that is born. You dont have to be taught to be an atheist, you have to be taught to not be one.

But I think there's another difference between atheists and non-atheists, which is that in general atheists are more aware of other religions and their teachings. I remember seeing a "religious knowledge" survey (Pew Research Center?) of Americans, and the results were that atheists and agnostics scored the highest. This is relevant if we assume that making more independent decisions on what to belief is affected by the knowledge of those beliefs.

#36 Edited by ssejllenrad (12790 posts) - - Show Bio

#37 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@cameron83 said:

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution.

How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread.

Agreed,not the time/place...however,I am not sure how it would exactly contradict it,at the same time,I am not exactly sure how it would fit in....

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

@cameron83 said:

Personally my opinion on that is that most religious people only accept the religion because of the social aspects and because they grew up with it.

That can't really be said for most because,at the same time,the exact same thing can be said for atheists and people of all religious views.

You can say the same thing about both groups and it could be true for both groups. Why not? It seems logical that most people would grow up to believe what they were taught. The main difference is that atheism isnt a believe system, it's a lack of a believe system, and as such it's the default for every human that is born. You dont have to be taught to be an atheist, you have to be taught to not be one.

But I think there's another difference between atheists and non-atheists, which is that in general atheists are more aware of other religions and their teachings. I remember seeing a "religious knowledge" survey (Pew Research Center?) of Americans, and the results were that atheists and agnostics scored the highest. This is relevant if we assume that making more independent decisions on what to belief is affected by the knowledge of those beliefs.

But the thing is that there are many atheists that are born into atheism just as there are Christians born into it.I mean,not every Christian is still a chrisitan because their mother told them to do so.And some people tell their parents to pick for themselves. And I can see your point(s).And there are people that come to atheism on their own and people that come to christianity on their own.So it's kinda the same,well,like everywhere.... :)

However,I have also seen atheists that are,while aware of the teachings of other religions,unaware of many fundamental things regarding Christianity.I am just saying that it's not really black/white,it's basically all over the place in the sense that its the same on every side of the fence.However,I don't think a person has to be aware of the teachings of other religious beliefs,per say,because,well,then it'd only make sense to educate yourself on every other belief system.I mean,it IS logical to be aware of other belief systems rather than just be part of an exclusive belief without being aware of others,but it would seem very difficult.....but still,you have VERY good points.Especially with the survey.I can actually relate to that being that my friend (an atheist,still is) and his family tried other beliefs....I mean,he is still ignorant of many things regarding Christianity,but so am I,so wth......

And that doesn't reflect on all atheists or even in general;Just a personal experience/relation.

#38 Edited by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

@cameron83 said:

I think most religious people agree with things like the Big Bang and even Evolution.

How this can be given their base religious beliefs is a separate discussion, and more appropriate to a religion thread.

Agreed,not the time/place...however,I am not sure how it would exactly contradict it,at the same time,I am not exactly sure how it would fit in....

Well, this is partly relevant to the thread, so I'll give a quick reply. The incompatible parts I was thinking about, in relation to the BBT and Evolution are:

Big Bang Theory: Contradicts the 6-day creation of the universe.

Evolution: Contradicts the creation of life on Earth, Adam and Eve, etc. With no Adam and Eve, the whole notion of Original Sin goes out the window. Once that's gone, a lot falls apart including the reason for Jesus to come to Earth and be crucified.

Once you accept that evolution and things like the BBT theory are correct, there's really no logical way to reconcile much of the Judeo/Christian myths, without some seriously logic-bending arguments like those from William Lane Craig.

@cameron83 said:

Personally my opinion on that is that most religious people only accept the religion because of the social aspects and because they grew up with it.

That can't really be said for most because,at the same time,the exact same thing can be said for atheists and people of all religious views.

You can say the same thing about both groups and it could be true for both groups. Why not? It seems logical that most people would grow up to believe what they were taught. The main difference is that atheism isnt a believe system, it's a lack of a believe system, and as such it's the default for every human that is born. You dont have to be taught to be an atheist, you have to be taught to not be one.

But I think there's another difference between atheists and non-atheists, which is that in general atheists are more aware of other religions and their teachings. I remember seeing a "religious knowledge" survey (Pew Research Center?) of Americans, and the results were that atheists and agnostics scored the highest. This is relevant if we assume that making more independent decisions on what to belief is affected by the knowledge of those beliefs.

While I do like watching arguments...can you guys promise to not make responses anymore than 4 paragraphs >.>

The argument will just end when it reaches it's climax with a "have a nice day" or a more aggressive "grow up" or something along those lines.......

either way, I just have to say:

@laflux got any popcorn?

#39 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

Fact in science

Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science

Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact sometimes referred to as empirical evidence is central to building scientific theories and fundamental questions regarding the natural phenomena of Nature, scientific method, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation (details below). Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21]

This shows that scientific fact and thoery are different. The next article does so even more thoroughly

Actually no it doesnt. The article is correct in that: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation". It's talking about the most basic definition of a fact. It doesnt say that this is different from a theory, but it wants to make it clear that there is a contrast between a basic fact and a theory which is an explanation for a collection of facts. An explanation of how many facts relate to each other can itself be a fact.

In both cases, a simple basic fact and a theory, they are both explanations based on observation and reasoning. Period. The only difference is that a theory is more complex and involves more than a single observation.

Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy(among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

That in no way contradicts what I said about theories.

@pfcoolio14 said:

Of course. I included the text from wikipedia because I felt it was a good explanation of what I wanted to get across, not because it proves anything.

The problem with using the word "theory" is that it has many meanings. Laymen use it to mean "some idea I just had" and scientists use it to mean "a well-substantiated explanation for a set of phenomenon". But even then, scientists sometimes do talk about theories that are not well-substantiated or sometimes even disproved. This is why I tried to specify earlier that I was talking about theories like the BB and Evolution, because those are accepted theories. That means that those theories are considered as fact by scientific consensus. All theories are not fact, those are.

Accepted scientific theories are not "unclear truths". They may be incomplete, they may be hard to understand, but they're not unclear. If they were then they couldnt make predictions, which is a key part of a scientific theory.

Fine, keep disagreeing with me if you like. I'm only trying to help you. If you think that reading an AP Bio textbook makes you some authority on science, then I cant really do much for you.

#40 Posted by Violens (543 posts) - - Show Bio

DNA typewriters

#41 Posted by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

But the thing is that there are many atheists that are born into atheism just as there are Christians born into it.I mean,not every Christian is still a chrisitan because their mother told them to do so.And some people tell their parents to pick for themselves. And I can see your point(s).And there are people that come to atheism on their own and people that come to christianity on their own.So it's kinda the same,well,like everywhere.... :)

I agree, it's not a black and white thing, and works both ways. That's why I said that it can be true for both groups. There's a lot of variables to that equation.

LOL... uhmm, thanks. =)

#42 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

The article contrasts "scientific fact" and "theory". Being a possible explanation for a fact definitely does not make something a fact. But we already went over definitions. I just put the information in front of you.

The second article was supposed to be helpful because it says "no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome". The scientific community has agreed to an extent, but the big bang is being challenged every year no matter how small those who disagree with it. Lots of physicists disagree because it directly contradicts the first two laws of thermodynamics which has been here longer than the big bang theory. The first being that energy can't be created or destroyed. The big bang directly contradicts that. But that's aside from the point because I'm not arguing the validity of the theory as I agree with it.

Third thing I already went over that.

As for that little statement. If it's incomplete and hard to understand, then that means its not unclear. Now you yourself are making contradictions cause if I'm not mistaken I could put that as the definition of unclear.

I put the textbook because I was telling you where I was getting my information. You said wikipedia. The former is more reliable than the latter so I mentioned it. I never said I was an authority on science so I'm assuming you're offended easily by statements that weren't meant to offend you. And also, I never really asked you to do anything for me. That last quote was a clear explanation. But to each their own. I guess this is at an end. Good luck to ya.

#43 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

...

I'm not offended, just tired because I'm trying to help you understand that there is no clearcut distinction between "fact" and "theory" in science, even if some book or wikipedia says so. And, this semantic argument over the meaning of "fact" comes up over and over and over again and I have little patience for it since all it does is obscure the real argument. Something is either true to some degree of certainty, or it's not true. I dont especially care if you call it a "fact", but somehow people always begin religious arguments with "blah blah isnt a fact, it's a theory". They dont know what a fact is, what a theory is, of what the evidence is for the thing they're criticizing, and that doesnt offend me but it does annoy me.

I found a nice quote from Hermann Joseph Muller, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, talking about the Theory of Evolution:

"There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact." - H.J.Muller

If you dont like that, maybe this quote from the National Academy of Sciences, also referring to how evolution is a fact:

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples."

#44 Posted by ImNemotheGemini (845 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Hey Willy ... Ummm please adjust your wording ! The way you're using "Fact" is in fact (see what I did there) the definition of Scientific Fact ! Scientific fact being something approved and accepted wide spread but is always subject to change or tweaking ! A Fact is something that is unchangable and constant ! Like its a Fact that I will blink because otherwise my eyeballs will dry out ! Or that its a fact that the sun will rise !

Scientific fact and Fact are different things !

#45 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Hey Willy ... Ummm please adjust your wording ! The way you're using "Fact" is in fact (see what I did there) the definition of Scientific Fact ! Scientific fact being something approved and accepted wide spread but is always subject to change or tweaking ! A Fact is something that is unchangable and constant ! Like its a Fact that I will blink because otherwise my eyeballs will dry out ! Or that its a fact that the sun will rise !

Scientific fact and Fact are different things !

That was kind of the start of this, right? Whether something can be a fact to 100% certainty? The problem is, that's impossible. Nothing can be proved to be true 100% certain, even if we're talking about the common usage of the word "fact" and not the "scientific fact". I do agree there's a general difference in how scientists and laymen use these words, but I dont see any case in which anything is ever 100% certain. I cant even be completely certain that the universe isnt a computer simulation or a hologram, so what hope is there for anything else?

#46 Posted by ccraft (5593 posts) - - Show Bio

I was hoping for some cool stuff, but nope, just people arguing.

Has anyone heard of the hollow earth & moon theory? That would be cool if it were true.

Also popsci.com has some cool science stuff.

#47 Edited by WillPayton (9823 posts) - - Show Bio

@ccraft said:

I was hoping for some cool stuff, but nope, just people arguing.

There will be more cool stuff coming.

@ccraft said:

Has anyone heard of the hollow earth & moon theory? That would be cool if it were true.

I havent heard about this. Can you elaborate?

But, I can tell you the Earth and Moon are not hollow. Sorry to disappoint. =)

#48 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

Jesus is the only science I need. If you beeleve in that evolution you r going to hell. I tell you it's true.

#49 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn:

Praise that brother

I dont need this devils magic

God bless America

#50 Posted by cameron83 (7643 posts) - - Show Bio

Jesus is the only science I need. If you beeleve in that evolution you r going to hell. I tell you it's true.

Oh you.......