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.
Log in to comment