Science is not 'Faith' (Trust) Based

Vesha wrote: Kaverael, science deals in facts and theories, the concept of a planet is neither in the same way that being Fat is neither a fact nor theory. What happened to Pluto was they redefined what a planet was in the same way you could redefine what being fat is. Being a planet is an opinion not a fact the change was due to discovering more information about rocks that orbit the sun and deciding the Pluto was more similar to other balls of matter then the other 8 balls of matter that orbit the sun.

Vesha,
The point I was trying to make is that what was once "scientific fact" has been changed based on newer technology, and no longer factual. If that is the case, what else do we accept as "scientific fact", and do we accept it based on faith that the science behind it is complete?

an entirely scientific Weltanschauung is respected

and

the intro to the TotJo doctrine, and
the 8 "Jedi Believe"
are personal world-views that are valued . . or not

it is true. . that . . the tenants, the code, the creed, the teachings, the maxims are not unique to the TotJo or Jedism
yet the purpose, meaning, and application varies based on an invidual's world-view

steamboat28 wrote: draw a distinction between science (the neutral process itself, helping us to understand the universe), and Science

Yes, that is an accurate distinction to make. The noun versus the verb. It's probably a distinction I should have begun with.

Kaverael wrote: It wasn't long ago that science called Pluto a planet, and our solar system had nine planets. Now, Pluto is not a planet, and our solar system only has eight planets. We trusted scientists when they said Pluto is a planet, then they changed their definition of planet, and Pluto was no more. So, science is not the end all fact, as those facts can change over time. You can't pin your beliefs on scientific fact, as you must have faith that the scientific fact is complete, and that there is no other alternative that will come to light later down the road when technology becomes more advanced.

Sadly incorrect.

‘A progression from particulars to a universal’ (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 4th cent. BC).

Science is an inductive method. Facts as a result of science are therefore inductive facts. Inductive facts change.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the definition of a scientific fact = Unchangeable objective truth. It doesn't.

Mareeka wrote: he held only one premise to be true: I think therefore I am.
To which he raised every thought of doubt***

After doing this simple test with every thought of doubt, he was able to accept everything without a doubt exactly as it is.

Yes he did, but his entire method relies completely on there being an perfect, immortal God Philosophers in the 1600's were allowed to use God as proof of their reasoning

Deception is an imperfection therefore since God is perfect he cannot be deceiving me

He uses some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God (better than any street preacher you'll find ) but his arguments still do not prove God's existence undoubtedly.

Vesha wrote: Steamboat, What that refers to is favoritism toward theories which does happen. Science is much like pop culture. For example almost all scientist believe in gravity. Gravity is just a theory because we can not directly detect gravity with our five senses we can only see its effects. If someone said gravity wasn’t real most scientist would probably dismiss that person as an idiot. That’s because not all theories are equally credible and to think that all theories should be credible would waste an enormous amount of time and we would never get anywhere. Does that mean scientist could be wrong about everything? No facts are still facts. An object falls to the ground (on earth without wind resistance) at a velocity = -9.81 m/s^2 that is fact.

I just wanted to be a little picky about the language, since my post to begin with was partly in response to use of language (though also metaphysical ideas).

Gravity would be a theory whether we could detect it with our senses or not. A theory is the absolute highest point you can possibly achieve in science. Facts are based on theories (remember to keep inserting 'science' behind all this). Cell theory is a 'theory' Special Relativity is a 'theory' but that is the greatest pinnacle of achievement in science. Science does not create objective truths about reality, it creates scientific truths that are true if you choose to accept the foundations of science as true. We don't 'believe' in Cell Theory or Special Relativity, we accept them as true within the framework of science.

A theory can be disproven but it can never be proven true - it's a posteriori.

a Hypothesis in God

A hypothesis must be both testable and falsifiable. You cannot 'test' for God. All arguments for a God's existence are philosophical and theological.
It is the same way you cannot have an 'afterlife hypothesis'. How do you test what happens when you are dead?
Scientific Hypothesis does not simply mean 'idea'.

---

After composing this post as I read through the comments I wanted to reiterate my response to what steamboat said: 'The noun versus the verb. It's probably a distinction I should have begun with.

Kaverael wrote:

Vesha wrote: Kaverael, science deals in facts and theories, the concept of a planet is neither in the same way that being Fat is neither a fact nor theory. What happened to Pluto was they redefined what a planet was in the same way you could redefine what being fat is. Being a planet is an opinion not a fact the change was due to discovering more information about rocks that orbit the sun and deciding the Pluto was more similar to other balls of matter then the other 8 balls of matter that orbit the sun.

Vesha,
The point I was trying to make is that what was once "scientific fact" has been changed based on newer technology, and no longer factual. If that is the case, what else do we accept as "scientific fact", and do we accept it based on faith that the science behind it is complete?

And my point was it was never a scientific fact it was an opinion.

Now about gravity, if we could detect gravity with our five senses and it passed multiply test, then we would call it a law. Just like there is no theory of thermodynamics, there is the laws of thermodynamics which are observable, testable, and have never been broken.

Although science is based in observation and repeatable results to me it seems that science has become a religion of faith to the average individual. I understand Akkarin’s thought process and argument based in the original post and don’t have issue with it. Just bringing another side, or possibility, to the table.

faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

sci•ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

re•li•gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

In science, the observable events are recorded and data is collected for publication. Recreating the experiment further quantifies the results to the individual and can then have the results published in either support or opposition of previous said results. Experiments are often reproduced with a singular variable altered to further research or explanation of original hypothesis. For the non-bias scientist, science is an invaluable tool in aiding the discovery of the natural world and our knowledge and understanding of it.

To the average person… science is little more than a faith based religion. With little understanding of underlying or fundamental principles, and limited resources, accepting the found prior results as continuously valid is just about the only option available to them. And due to so much of our society being based in and relying heavily on the results of science and it’s advances society as a whole has learned to blindly follow or believe in the institution presented. And our faith is affirmed every time we hold a box of polymer composites, silica and composite alloys up to the side of our head and speak to others through invisible lines of connection; or gaze adoringly at the latest and greatest device sent to us as a show of power from those that wield science with little less regard then a child with a toy.

Don’t get me wrong, science is GREAT!!! I love it! But it is just a tool. What we do with it and how we treat it is up to us and speaks as much about us as any other action we perform in our lives.

I guess what I’m getting at is… even though results provided through scientific endeavors are constantly at our disposal don’t take at face value all that is presented in the light it is presented in. People are opinionated and bias; and normally have some agenda that motivates them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be very bad to blindly follow and accept “what is” on faith.

Thanks Akkarin for letting me know that about Descartes.

But . :blink: . . his belief has nothing to do with the protocol for the experiment or its value were it applied to every doubt.

A couple of side notes:

(1)
Descartes' scientific process is at the base of post freudian cognitive behavioralism, especially in Albert Ellis' work.
Ellis was atheist.

(2)
I found the experiment on facebook. I tried it. It is effective in loosening attachments.

Maybe I should have started a new thread ??????

To the average person, science is whatever they are told it is. You only have to look at the constant half assed, badly researched, bias presentation of "Nutritional science" in the media to see this. Or in the way research on physchiatric drugs is presented.

Science in my opinion, is far too often polluted by intention. So unless you are capable of reading and understanding the research without bias, science requires "trust".

One is not the other.

I never understood why people try to pit science (more specifically, biology, astronomy, and geology) and faith against each other. Why not argue as to whether space exploration can take the place of proctology? It makes about as much sense. Aside from creationists or radical atheists like Dawkins, science vs faith is a non-issue.