The Science Thread

by EntirelyPossible 65 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  tec

  Good thread. I believe I understand most of this about science... just don't always have the terminology right.

  I would like to comment on this:

  Second, of course what we "know" will change. That's the whole point! To act as if that is a failing of science is to have absolutely no understanding of science. It's NOT to prove what we know, but to learn more. Sometimes that overturns existing knowledge. That's not only expected, but damned exciting when it happens. It means we learned something new on the journey.

  I think some people misunderstand when a person of faith mentions that the knowledge from science changes. Just because we acknolwedge that (as do you) does not mean that we dismiss science or its findings. We do not throw out the baby with the bathwater - not in science; and not in faith (as in when we threw out 'religion'). We just don't take those scientific findings as 'gospel'.

  Now, as to what the scientific method is not... 1)Personal revelation 2)Ideas with no way to measure or test 3)defaulting to "you can't prove it's false so my idea must be true, i.e., the galaxy is sentient.

  Of course.

  I would like to ask a question now though, as to faslifiability. What does that word mean, in the scientific understanding? Does falifiabilty (or falsify) mean prove something false? Or does it mean simply to show other possible reasons for something... that may or may not prove something false?

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  InterestedOne

  tec: I am so glad you asked about falsifiability. It is a very important concept. If someone makes a claim, they should formulate their statement of it in a way that allows it to be falsified. Here is a wikipedia page about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

  It is worth taking some time to ruminate on it.
• 

  tec

  Thanks IO, I will look through that.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Tec it means you try to prove the hypothesis or theory wrong. It does not mean offering possible alternatives. THOSE would be their own hypotheses and would then have to come under the same scrutiny as the original. In effect, you can't prove a hypothesis false by offering another one. They both won't be correct. And working on a different hypothesis could indeed eventually falsify another hypothesis--but not simply because it is a competing theory, but because IT proves the original false.

  This is a common mistake with Creationists. They believe that suggesting alternatives that seem plausible to them is enough to challenge a hypothesis. But it doesn't. Not unless they falsify the original and then just as vigorously work to falsify their own. This prevents bias--confirmation bias.

  NC
• 

  tec

  Yes, thank you, NC. That is what I thought it meant (and that is what I think I got from that link, IO... but I need to read that through a couple times, lol).

  I had two reasons for asking. One, I want to make sure I understand what is being said to me, and that I understand what I am saying. The only reason I thought it might mean something else is because on that 'evil spirits' thread, some said that believers (like me) continue to believe even though our beliefs have been proven false time and again. Since I know that isn't true (at least as pertains to me), I wondered perhaps if it meant something other than what I thought. I hope no one takes offense. I am being sincere, and not trying to derail. Just wanted that to be clear in my head.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Tec---it's a touchy question. Science seeks to explain the natural not the supernatural. So it doesn't really go about trying to disprove the existence of evil spirits per se---BUT it has falsified that evil spirits are responsible for occurances in the natural world. For instance, at one time they were blamed for illness, failed crops, still births, visions, mental illness etc. Science has disproven that evil spirits are behind this by actually finding the causes.

  NC
• 

  InterestedOne

  tec, try thinking of it this way: the statement must be falsifi-ABLE. It must be -able- to be falsified.
• 

  NewChapter

  Good point IO. Because that means it can be tested.
• 

  InterestedOne

  I am by no means an expert in this stuff, but here is an interesting thought:

  You will sometimes hear a non-religious person ask a religious person the following question about the claim that a particular religious idea is true:

  Can you state something that would prove your claim false?

  and the asker is often frustrated when the religious person recoils at the question. Contrast this with the following:

  J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era". [ 17 ]

  He is at least able to tell you something that would prove his claim false.
• 

  Berengaria

  Just wanted to say Hi Sizemik and happy to see you!