DoddPower
10 years ago

So are you saying if it's called science, it is automatically true? Most of what I would have said, Wade already said eloquently. As for science being "fact based", yeah, if it is proveable or measureable. If it is THEORY - like the Big Bang THEORY, Darwin's THEORY of evolution, or Hutton's uniformitarian THEORY of geology, then it is faith-based, just like most of religion.

To some of us, the Big Bang Theory is NOT a "threat" or controversy or whatever, as the first verse of the Bible, as I have said, tells us who and what, but not when and how - "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Or the THEORY of gravity!

I really don't think a lot of people understand what a scientific theory really means.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Or the THEORY of gravity!

I really don't think a lot of people understand what a scientific theory really means.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



Did you EVER hear it called that? Seriously?

What, pray tell, does a scientific theory really mean?


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago
Ok, I'll bite.

How is what we "know" about the Big Bang repeatable? Oh, I have no doubt that there are a number of people that can repeat this or that mathematical calculation/"proof". But we're nowhere near the repeatability of Newton's apple or Tycho Brahe's collection of empirical evidence.

What we have is a sample size of one: this universe that exists and exhibits a variety of characteristics consistent with a Big Bang story. Every other universe posited is....I believe ... a construction of logic and higher maths and wonderful storytelling. ISTM anyone that claims the superiority of a method that draws cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample size of one should not be casting stones at those who would draw similar cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample of one God. If anything, the opposite, for at least the God believer admits his is a giant leap of faith.

As for science being "as good as it gets" in the human search for truth, I can't really quibble there. (Not all would agree that "economists" and "historians" are scientists, of course.) But on the other hand, I also believe that we exaggerate how good that "as good as it gets" truly is.

Take for example the question of life on other planets. Suppose someone picks a star at random from tonight's sky. What do we know about life on the planets, asteroids, space stations, or whatnot orbiting that star? (Or, if that little light that we first think is a star but actually turns out to be a galaxy or an entire cluster of galaxies, what do we know about life in that galaxy or cluster?) Scientists (and non-scientists) have speculated. They have techniques for measuring the intensity of that star, or the likelihood that it is "like" Sol, or that it is a galaxy receding from us at a particular pace, etc. But as far as actual scientific evidence of "what it takes to get (sentient) life on a planet, we have, again, a sample size of exactly one.

Fortunately, science isn't just about repeatability. Its about asking questions in a particular way, with a particular kind of modesty, the kind of modesty that recognizes that even after several hundred years of Enlightenment, what we don't know dwarfs what we do.

If science was no more than what can be repeated in a college laboratory, it would be a very small subject.

I consider myself a scientist. But I absolutely hate the word "fact". Fact is a word of certainty. And I think a true scientist always remembers that the accuracy of what we "know" is still probabilistic. That no matter how many times we "repeat" a "controlled" experiment, we cannot prove that the uncontrolled universe has, is, or will behave in the same way.

Facts are what God (or, if you want to reject God, the universe) knows. In our imprecision we scientific types may talk about finding and using facts, but what we are really doing is arguing that our methods of conjecture are better than the alternative.

I have no problem with an organic chemist saying her methods of making conjectures are better than my historian's methods of making conjectures. I do have a problem with anyone, economist or chemist or anyone else, claiming that they are dealing only in "facts" whereas I and mine are "merely conjectures".

Tell me you have a way of making better conjectures about the role of the Divine, and I'll listen. I might accuse you of hubris, but I'll listen. But tell me that you are dealing only in fact and that only I in my damned insistence of a possible Divine role, and I will not only accuse you of hubris, but I will say that you neither understand my method nor the limitations of your own.

IMO we'd all be better off if we removed "fact" from our vocabulary along with similarly useless terms like "objective" and perhaps even "truth" (in the sense of something that we can actually achieve). They are the kind of words that Orwell railed against almost 70 years ago, tired words that suggest precision and accuracy when in fact they reflect exactly the opposite in actuality. Leave them to politicians, CEOS, movie producers, and other sophomoric thinkers.

The pursuit of truth is a noble human endeavor. To claim the knowledge of truth is the act of a fool.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

Did you EVER hear it called that? Seriously?

What, pray tell, does a scientific theory really mean?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Actually, it is a theory. (Several theories, in fact.) A theory that most scientists (and non-scientists, for that matter), believe in. A theory that when we drop an apple, it will fall to the ground, based on our observation of hundreds of years of apples and other objects falling to the ground.

It is a theory because no one has yet "proven" that when I drop another apple tomorrow, it, too, will fall to the ground rather than morph into a feather and float away, rise toward Mars, or hover like a hummingbird. We're sure to five million and seven significant digits that it will fall, but we can't eliminate that possible variation in digit number five million and eight.

If gravity were truly a truth universally acknowledged, there would be no need for scientists who continue to study it.

The "theory" part is, IMO, the huge part of what makes science so incredibly valuable. Theory isn't just "opinion," it is opinion that is reasoned in a particular way.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Zero2Cool
10 years ago
A read you may enjoy.

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4 

UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago

The Bibles was written about 100 or years after the death of Christ, right? Why did it take so long?

Random thought. A little experiment I always found interesting. Get a line of 10 people together. Write down two sentences. Tell the person on one end the two sentences and then tell them to pass it to the next person. It's quite amazing how those two sentences get transformed from one end to the other.

I can't help but think of this when thinking about the Bible and it's many variations. And how can each variation and each God and each religion be the "right" one? I do think religion can be a great thing.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



It didn't take 100 years to write. It took zero time to write. John 1.

What took 100 years is the human transcription. Human beings are slow in figuring things out.

As your experiment results point out.

[grin1]
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
DoddPower
10 years ago

Ok, I'll bite.

How is what we "know" about the Big Bang repeatable? Oh, I have no doubt that there are a number of people that can repeat this or that mathematical calculation/"proof". But we're nowhere near the repeatability of Newton's apple or Tycho Brahe's collection of empirical evidence.

What we have is a sample size of one: this universe that exists and exhibits a variety of characteristics consistent with a Big Bang story. Every other universe posited is....I believe ... a construction of logic and higher maths and wonderful storytelling. ISTM anyone that claims the superiority of a method that draws cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample size of one should not be casting stones at those who would draw similar cosmic conclusions from an unrepeatable (by man) sample of one God. If anything, the opposite, for at least the God believer admits his is a giant leap of faith.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Matters of the universe are a completely different matter, entirely. That's why there is much more uncertainty involved. I'm not very convinced of anything when it comes to many aspects of this subject. Many of the measurements and observations are indirect, and the methods can't be as good as things we can replicate here on earth. It's very much a work in progress. But I at least like to take in the best information available. Without evoking some type of faith, it's very difficult to explain things. I at least prefer to hear as many differing hypotheses as are available, and I can form my own opinion from that.

As for science being "as good as it gets" in the human search for truth, I can't really quibble there. (Not all would agree that "economists" and "historians" are scientists, of course.) But on the other hand, I also believe that we exaggerate how good that "as good as it gets" truly is.

Take for example the question of life on other planets. Suppose someone picks a star at random from tonight's sky. What do we know about life on the planets, asteroids, space stations, or whatnot orbiting that star? (Or, if that little light that we first think is a star but actually turns out to be a galaxy or an entire cluster of galaxies, what do we know about life in that galaxy or cluster?) Scientists (and non-scientists) have speculated. They have techniques for measuring the intensity of that star, or the likelihood that it is "like" Sol, or that it is a galaxy receding from us at a particular pace, etc. But as far as actual scientific evidence of "what it takes to get (sentient) life on a planet, we have, again, a sample size of exactly one.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Again, see my earlier post. It wouldn't be hard to convince me that the level of uncertainty of the study of the universe is quite high. It's a relatively indirect science, at least at this point. That's still true to an extent on the planet earth, but certainly not in all cases.

Fortunately, science isn't just about repeatability. Its about asking questions in a particular way, with a particular kind of modesty, the kind of modesty that recognizes that even after several hundred years of Enlightenment, what we don't know dwarfs what we do.

If science was no more than what can be repeated in a college laboratory, it would be a very small subject.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



It's not only about what can be repeated in a laboratory . . . at all. That's just one small aspect, and often the most useless in terms of predicting "real life." Every study I have been a part of in the natural sciences has had a lab component, a greenhouse component, and--most importantly--multiple replicated field trials in several different locations, blocked accordingly, and properly designed to answer the questions that are being sought (and the level of uncertainly quantified). Experiments in the laboratory are very controlled, but experiments on the face of the earth are much more difficult to control (obviously the universe is even more difficult). The issue then becomes correlating what happened in the lab (and the greenhouse in my case) to what occurred in the field. Again, the lab results just show the results of a perfectly controlled scenario, which has a very limited use of predicting what actually will occur in "normal" conditions. Those type of results are mostly just useful in helping understand what should have happened in the field, and explaining the variables that altered the expected results.

I think it mostly is about repeatability. If results can't be repeated, or similar conclusions derived from some type of analysis, then it cannot be considered any type of "fact" or "truth." At that point, it can likely be attributed to natural variability of the nature of reality. However, embedded in that repeatability is all of the appropriate questions you speak of. I've never worked with a scientist that isn't well-aware that there is much more unknown than known. That's what drives most of us to keep going. To chip away at the metaphorical ice block in an attempt to learn more, and derive better solutions to what ever problem or scenario exists.

I consider myself a scientist. But I absolutely hate the word "fact". Fact is a word of certainty. And I think a true scientist always remembers that the accuracy of what we "know" is still probabilistic. That no matter how many times we "repeat" a "controlled" experiment, we cannot prove that the uncontrolled universe has, is, or will behave in the same way.

IMO we'd all be better off if we removed "fact" from our vocabulary along with similarly useless terms like "objective" and perhaps even "truth" (in the sense of something that we can actually achieve). They are the kind of words that Orwell railed against almost 70 years ago, tired words that suggest precision and accuracy when in fact they reflect exactly the opposite in actuality. Leave them to politicians, CEOS, movie producers, and other sophomoric thinkers.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



At this point, it's a matter of semantics. What you or any scientist may consider a "fact" is just a relative term. As I said, most scientists understand that humans can't really perceive absolute truth (at least outside of the context of some type of faith or perceived intuition). However, I can plant a crop and expose it to certain conditions, and get a similar result almost every time (if not every time). I can cut off oxygen to my blood stream, and my organs will stop functioning. I can drop an apple and it will hit the ground every time, at least on this planet. For practical purposes, that's close enough to call those silly examples "facts." If one wanted to call them something else, such as: "most commonly observed phenomenon", I'd be OK with that, but that seems kind of silly. In terms of the planet earth, if something is almost certain to happen each time a circumstance occurs, I consider it a fact. But as I said earlier, I'm well aware that could change at some point when new knowledge or technology becomes available. That's just part of the scientific process, and frankly rhetorical.

Philosophical discussions are fine, but in terms of practical reality--engineering, agriculture, manufacturing, health care, etc.--people need answers to solve the issues they have. At that point, repeatable results are all that's really necessary, at least until some type of better repeatable results are available. Outside of that context, I completely agree that there are almost no "absolute truths" to the human perception. The only way I could see that being true is if some type of faith or belief is present in an individual. I think most scientist would agree that there are few to no "absolute truths," at least in the observable world. Although I suppose scientific laws would have something to say about that. But as far as I'm concerned, it's all about repeatable results, which goes hand in hand with scientific theories and laws. Again, I guess it's mostly semantics. Many ways to describe the same thing.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Actually, it is a theory. (Several theories, in fact.) A theory that most scientists (and non-scientists, for that matter), believe in. A theory that when we drop an apple, it will fall to the ground, based on our observation of hundreds of years of apples and other objects falling to the ground.

It is a theory because no one has yet "proven" that when I drop another apple tomorrow, it, too, will fall to the ground rather than morph into a feather and float away, rise toward Mars, or hover like a hummingbird. We're sure to five million and seven significant digits that it will fall, but we can't eliminate that possible variation in digit number five million and eight.

If gravity were truly a truth universally acknowledged, there would be no need for scientists who continue to study it.

The "theory" part is, IMO, the huge part of what makes science so incredibly valuable. Theory isn't just "opinion," it is opinion that is reasoned in a particular way.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Science isn't really my field, but I was not aware anybody was "studying" gravity - except maybe ways to overcome it. Rather than proveable versus theoretical, I suppose the distinction should be between observable and not observable.

I still say, I've NEVER heard it called the THEORY of Gravity.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
DakotaT
10 years ago

It didn't take 100 years to write. It took zero time to write. John 1.

What took 100 years is the human transcription. Human beings are slow in figuring things out.

As your experiment results point out.

[grin1]

Originally Posted by: Wade 



The New Testament was written at the Council of Nicea, where a bunch of "reputable" men muddled pagan traditions with the teachings of Christ to form what we've all had shoved down our throat all of our lives. The Old Testament is just a bunch of dessert stories with centuries of embellishments added in. The New Testament refutes much of the awful Old Testament, but a bunch of asstards still think Leviticus is relevant today.

You all can believe in the resurrection all you want to, I call bullshit! I call bullshit on purgatory, and I call bullshit on "miracles" performed by Christ. What I do believe in is the Messiah has yet to come. So out of all the BS, I think the Jews have things about right, except for their horrible money mongering, which has caused them the "lie in the bed they made".

I also believe in Armageddon and I wish it would hurry the fuck up already.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
10 years ago
Dakota....I'd hate to be you if this "asstard" is
right and there is a heaven and hell.

I only hope to someday be as all knowing as
you seem to be.

I can't help but wonder what happened to you
that has soured you so much when it comes
to discussions involving God.

Evolution is a story, 100% made up in mans
imagination. That makes me wonder why
it's so easy for some to believe, while the
thought that everything you see was made
by intelligent design seems so hard
to believe.
Where is the so called "scientific proof" of
evolution that I hear about so often?
It doesn't exist.
Yet I'm blasted for believing in God by faith
by the very people that put their faith in
a theory made up by a man less the 200 years
ago.
Let's check all the science books written in the
last 150 years and see how many so called
"Facts" that were written have been proved
false. Then look at the Bible and see what
has been proven false.
If you choose to believe in evolution, you
have that right. God gave us free will.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (7h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (13h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (14h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (15h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (18h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (21h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (21h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (21h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (21h) : Against tbd
dfosterf (21h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (21h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (21h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (21h) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (21h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (21h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (21h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (21h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (22h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

19h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.