Please read my previous post responding to Satanus about fact vs. scientific theory. As to your example of the earth being round, yes it was always a fact. However it was not verified to the majority of civilization until Greek astronomy of the 3rd century BC, and further verified by European circumnavigation of our globe in the 16th century by Magellan.
Greetings, dear Goph'... and the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one! Yes, I read you post to dear Satanus and I perhaps I understood both he and dear apognophos (peace to you, both!) more than you initially did. And yes, I understand as to the shape of earth and time of its verification. This was my point to another; unfortunately, such one doesn't tend to take any points other than his own. He's still young, yet, so... there is some reason to hope.
Before it was verified, it could only be a scientific theory - i.e. the best explanation by the consensus of scientists.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
Some facts are waiting to be discovered.
Something I and others have been saying here for quite some time. That a fact has not yet been discovered does not negate the TRUTH of a matter. It is still the TRUTH... regardless of whether the FACT of that truth has been discovered yet or not. Some wish folks to believe that it is only truth... WHEN the fact(s) have been discovered. It was an issue I had with the WTBTS: WHEN it is truth? When YOU say it is? Or when it IS, even if you don't KNOW it is?
So I will not and never did assert that facts are not true until they are verified. I only say that facts ARE verifiable (or become verifiable as scientific technology makes that possible) and at that point are incontrovertible.
I hear you, dear one, and thanks for clearing that up as to you. Because, unfortunately, I and others have made this same assertion... many, many... many... times... which has been unrelentingly disputed here.
Whereas religion, by its very nature, is not on a quest for facts because it claims to know all the truth already.
Okay, now you know I am NOT a proponent of religion, by ANY stretch. But I have to disagree with this, just based on my own experience. True, the WTBTS may do this, but I can't say religion, by its very nature, claims such... because I have HAD religion, by means of pastors, reverends, deacons, elders, and priests say to ME, "Well, we just don't know"... "God is a mystery"... and "You ask too many questions."
And so this is what "bugs" me about certain proponents of science; just by what you claim here as to religion... I see you as being as dogmatic about THEM as many proponents of religion are about SCIENCE. BOTH are at pole-ends... refusing to accept any benefit of the other. What I have learned, though, is that REALITY is dead center: includes science AND faith. One who only possesses an undertanding of one or the other, though, actually does himself/herself a great disservice. Cheats oneself, really... of reality.
In such religion there is no need for further investigation, it's said to be already frozen in time in the ancient wisdom of its books.
Okay, I will grant you that in some, MOST, religion... and particularly "christianity" and Islam... this is true. But there is lot of religion that isn't about these two. And then there is faith (NOT as man describes it but as it truthfully IS)... that isn't about ANY of this: "christianity," Islam, books... none of that. And there is a need for further "investigation," at the very least as to what may or may not be inspired of God. If, though, one's understanding of faith is limited SOLELY to what man... and primarily religionists... SAY it is, then one is only going to know how to proceed on that premise. Which is nothing and so LEADS to nothing. What if, though, you found out that faith not what you THOUGHT it was... was led to BELIEVE it was... at all... because the definitions that are out there... made, again, by man... don't even come close to what was MEANT when the word/premise was brought forth?
As with science, wouldn't you kind of go back to the drawing board as to YOUR theories, hypotheses, FACTS? And what if you did... and found out that, whoa, this is NOT what I've been led to believe it's about at ALL... but it's about (something else)? Would you drop what you have now found out... because, well, "everyone else says" it's what you USED to think it was?
Me: Perhaps when the proponents of science stop SPEAKING and ACTING like the proponents of religion, more people would listen to them.
You: By saying that you seem to condemn proponents of religion!
Well, of course there are exceptions to every rule... and I should have said SOME proponents... and "condemn proponents" isn't what I meant, of course - not my place to say who will or will not receive judgment... I can't even say that for Adham/Eve... but "condemn" what some of such DO? Sure! Don't you?
And I am not here vouching for the humility or honesty of all members of the scientific community. But I do say that bad research and bad claims in the realm of science are eventually exposed and corrected by other diligent and honest scientists. Fraudulent theories like "cold fusion" eventually get rooted out.
Eventually, yes, but not necessarily before great harm is done (think, bad medicine, surgical procedures, chemical weapons, bombs...). Rooted out? Sure. But not before first being taught as fact/truth. The same occurs with religion, though... which is why there ARE so many sects. Science makes better progress, IMHO, yes... and is far, far less culpable for harming humanity than religion, IMHO... but light blue (science) or dark blue (religion)... still blue. I'm more about green: lots of yellow... and a little blue, which may need to be adjusted from time to time as more "facts" come out... and other "facts" are revealed as not facts at all. (Some) proponents of blue, however, whether light or dark leave no room for any other color.
The advancement towards more solid explanations for the world around us continually happens in science.
I have never denied that, dear one. Indeed, I have shared... on many, many... many... occasions that science IS beneficial as it explains and helps us with regard to the world around us, in the physical sense... yes. But the physical is NOT all that IS "around" us. And we are NOT just physical beings! On many, many... many... occasions... I have shared that you are NOT simply your physical body... but the life force contained WITHIN that vessel. Hence, remove your arms, legs, heart, kidneys, eyes, ears... etc.... and you are still YOU. Science, however, can only speak as TO our physical world... for now. Perhaps forever. But it cannot... yet... speak to the SPIRIT world around us. Which world we ALSO exist in, to some degree... and it in us. And so what we have in the dichotomy of religion vs. science is certain proponents of either side utterly dismissing the realities of the other side. When neither speaks completely to the realities of the other, and one (religion) often can't even speak, truly, to the realities of its own side.
Me: Religionists can't see/understand where proponents of science are coming from when THEY say the facts "can change."
You: Please see my scientific facts vs. theories points my post made in response to Satanus. Scientific people don't say facts change. (Only liars do.)
Please see my statement: "... where PROPONENTS of science... say..." I should have said "certain proponents", yes, so I apologize for that error. And I meant, for the most part, some proponents HERE. By what certain ones here often state... and in a manner that suggests they know and so are right... I can understand why (some) religionists WOULD have a problem seeing/understanding where such PROPONENTS are coming from.
Scientists can refine theories or even drop them all together.
Can... and do. Yet, when religion does it (and I mean primarily the WTBTS, here. But I am not a proponent of the WTBTS at ALL) SOME proponents (including many here)... cry "foul!". And so when I see former JWs who are now unequivocal proponents of science doing the EXACT same thing as those they decry do (i.e., saying "fact change as we investigate further and gain more knowledge")... how can I call hold one to task for it while dismissing the other?
The thing is, dear one... both apparently can see the hypocrisy in the others but not in themselves. To me, though, a little leaven... is all it takes for ME to see it throughout.
Einstein humbly dropped the Static Universe theory when a correction was brought to his attention. Einstein wasn't changing facts when he dropped the Static Universe theory, because he didn't ever say it was a fact!
Now, see, I can see where you would say Mr. Einstein "humbly" dropped. The truth is that we don't know if he humbly did so... or did so because he had no choice - his theory was proven wrong. Did he fight against it? We don't know. All we know is that at SOME point he had to concede. Religion does, too, from time to time... albeit perhaps not as often or quickly... and so, perhaps not as "humbly" as some perceive that to be. I'll give you that. But the truth is that (some of them) do sometimes.
On the OTHER hand... truth, whether related to science, religion, faith, the physical world, the spirit world, the earth, Jerusalem Above, the body, the spirit, or what have you... does NOT change. Regardless of the understanding, verifiability, knowledge, theory, hypothesis, fact... or what have you... or LACK thereof... in existence at the time.
I realize that some have an issue with me and what I state as truth... because they [think they] can't verify it. What gets ME is that I say, yes, you CAN, here's how... and they say, "No, it must only be verifiable in THIS way!" Well, I mean, either someone trulys wants to verify something... or they don't. If I say, "You CAN verify it by [doing] this" and such one refuses to even try... how can they say something is "not" verifiable? That goes back to my example of trying to verify the tide in a manner and with tools/means that don't verify tides... and then saying the tide is not verifiable. It IS... with the proper tools/means. One who utterly rejects those tools/means has no ground to claim inability to verify. One who claims that something MUST be verified in the only way THEY know how to verify something... and refusing to entertain that their way may not BE the way at all... has no grounds to state that a thing isn't verifiable. That something isn't verifiable in ONE way... or in the most (currently) acceptable way... doesn't mean it isn't verifiable.
If one is willing to accept... as TRUE SCIENCE does... that there might be another, indeed more than one, way to verify a thing... then one can talk about science. So long as one cannot accept that, indeed REFUSES to accept that... one shouldn't even be talking about science, IMHO. Because one hasn't truly grasped the nature of science... which IS to discover... and verify... the unknown... which INCLUDES considering... and using... OTHER ways to verify a thing. Including ways beyond the currently known/accepted.
And if such a one says, "Well, okay, yes, there might be other ways, but you're not a scientist and so YOUR way is unacceptable," I would say, "Then stop asking non-scientists to verify that which is not scientific (i.e., relating to the physical world)... in a scientific way." Because you wouldn't ask scientists to verify what IS scientific (and thus, relating to the physical world) in a non-scientific way."
I hope this helps, dear one, and as always, again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a doulos of Christ,
SA
