|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 11:49:25 GMT -5
I think he is only differentiating between Science as a method for finding answers and other ways, like religion that require faith. What he says is accurate. Science does not require belief for it's conclusions.I don't know any scientist not open to new evidence in something that is accepted to be true. This is another way Science differs from Religion. It's why statements about things like "believing in evolution" are ridiculous. Evolution does not require belief. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I also think that statement bears some scrutiny. How many people accept scientific conclusions on a regular basis without really understanding the basis for it? I would actually say on a broad scale, science in practice does require some degree of belief in a sense. There was a time in human history when it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth. Now, do we have a considerable body of evidence of support for say your example of evolution, consumable at least to some degree by the reasonably educated layperson? I would generally argue yes, but let's sound out a little further. My field of studies is more physics versus biology. There are some nuances of evolution unresolved in my mind I've pondered at times out of intellectual curiosity, and I know with deeper study I could likely better understand how science might address those questions. It doesn't mean I refute evolution in the meantime, but it does mean I have to rely more on a "belief" the evolutionary biologists know what they are talking about versus the level of evidence I understand on say certain particle physics topics. I won't get into the religion discussion directly, that's not my purpose for these comments. I'm simply commenting on what it means to have "scientific knowledge", and as someone who again finds great joy in the pursuit of scientific insights, I think it's important to also recognize on what level we actually obtain that knowledge. This is something I've seen physicist and well-known educator Sean Carroll address at times, and while he creates educational works designed to be consumed at the layperson level, he has also pointed out that without some of the mathematics that goes with certain deeper scientific concepts there are barriers to truly appreciating the full meaning and "beauty" of what they ultimately mean. I've seen him try to bridge some of that by creating simplified mathematics that don't require the same rigorous academic experience of a college physics major, but allows deeper insight than a fully non-mathematical treatment. Again, my passion is around science and what it means to acquire scientific knowledge (in the epistemological sense if you will), so my comments are just in that context. A few things, what people thought before the modern Scientific method was established the last few hundred years was not Science. The nature of the Universe in ancient times was not Science. The Science NGT talks about is a recent development. (yes, with some exceptions down the years)
And people accepting what scientists say is not Science. Science is what scientists do using the scientific method. They require no faith or belief in their conclusions. And anybody can look at the evidence and study it to see how the results work. Yes, once you understand how Science functions, you can accept their conclusions without having to go over every study, but you can if you wish, and you need no belief to see for yourself. I think the other way Science differs is scientist know they can always be wrong, and part of their studies or experiments is trying to prove they are wrong.
As for evolution. Saying we haven't achieved an understanding of every nuisance of evolution doesn't make it any less of a fact. It was an established fact before DNA was deciphered and more of an established fact after.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 28, 2024 15:22:10 GMT -5
kirby101 - Also, thank you for the friendly debate on this topic, I know we both have counterpoints but it's always a nice stretch for the brain to consider a topic like this. I see where you are coming from. I think rather than disagreeing, we are looking at different aspects of this subject.
|
|
|
Post by DoghouseReilly on Apr 30, 2024 7:48:08 GMT -5
I think he is only differentiating between Science as a method for finding answers and other ways, like religion that require faith. What he says is accurate. Science does not require belief for it's conclusions.I don't know any scientist not open to new evidence in something that is accepted to be true. This is another way Science differs from Religion. It's why statements about things like "believing in evolution" are ridiculous. Evolution does not require belief. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, I also think that statement bears some scrutiny. How many people accept scientific conclusions on a regular basis without really understanding the basis for it? I would actually say on a broad scale, science in practice does require some degree of belief in a sense. There was a time in human history when it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth. You're conflating non-scientists' perception of the state of scientific knowledge with the actual practice of science. I doubt that when you say "it was established science that the universe rotated around the Earth" that you have in mind people saying that "my current best model of the universe is that the universe rotates around the earth, and this model has held up to attempts to disprove it". You're comparing assumptions to scientific theories, and then saying that because non-scientific assumptions have been wrong, then science sometimes requires belief. You're flirting with solipsism, which always happens when someone tries to diminish the awsomeness of the scientific method. Sure, *anything* at all is technically possible, but when you consider all possibilities have equal weight, no matter how absurd, then nothing at all has any meaning.
|
|
|
Post by DoghouseReilly on Apr 30, 2024 8:37:17 GMT -5
I have a question for our resident scientist(s) ( Roquefort Raider and whoever else): I studied biology in college (didn't quite finish my B.A., for reasons I won't get into), and although I never worked in a scientific field, I think I grokked everything pretty well, and held onto a lot of knowledge over the past decades. In the context of lay folk confusing the technical meaning of "theory" with its common usage (which in technical terms would map much better to "hypothesis"), I often hear non-scientists talking about how theories get discarded all the time. This is wrong, of course. Due to the rigorous testing involved before naming something a theory, any further evidence which comes along which might upset a theory in some way, always ends up with the "old", "upset" theory as a special case of the new one. Is this correct? Is there any example of a theory which was completely scrapped? If so, what would be the most prominent example?
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 9:51:33 GMT -5
I have a question for our resident scientist(s) ( Roquefort Raider and whoever else): I studied biology in college (didn't quite finish my B.A., for reasons I won't get into), and although I never worked in a scientific field, I think I grokked everything pretty well, and held onto a lot of knowledge over the past decades. In the context of lay folk confusing the technical meaning of "theory" with its common usage (which in technical terms would map much better to "hypothesis"), I often hear non-scientists talking about how theories get discarded all the time. This is wrong, of course. Due to the rigorous testing involved before naming something a theory, any further evidence which comes along which might upset a theory in some way, always ends up with the "old", "upset" theory as a special case of the new one. Is this correct? Is there any example of a theory which was completely scrapped? If so, what would be the most prominent example? It's very rare for a scientific theory to be scrapped (at least a well-established one); as new data comes in, it is usually just refined. When a major body of work is confined to the dustbin of history, it is most often referred to a model (like heliocentrism) or a mechanism (like Darwin's pangenesis). Certain theories can run concurrently to others and be incompatible, suggesting that we could eventually dump one in favour of the other; string theory, for example, is appealing because of its explanatory power but suffers from a serious lack of hard data. It could one day be dropped entirely (or show itself to be pretty accurate, I don't know). The whole thing is really about semantics. Even practicing scientists use the word "theory" in daily parlance as equivalent to "an idea". In a sense, a theory is a bit like a species: while we know what we're talking about when mentioning one, we don't have clear lines to tell us when we go from a well-tested hypothesis to a full-fledged theory. That's why certain models, certain ideas, will be called by different names -including "theory"- depending on one's source. A rather waffly response, I'm afraid!
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 30, 2024 9:58:06 GMT -5
The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view)
For instance, when we were discussing things in the ChatGPT thread, I asked the AI if a supersonic helicopter will ever be possible, with rotor blades capable of withstanding supersonic speeds. The answer, and I even looked on Quora, seemed to be a definitive “NO”.
That’s my personal example, other examples could include faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc.
For anyone with a scientific head here, going by my example, can we completely rule out a supersonic helicopter for all eternity, or could it be within the realms of reality, if a little improbable?
Like I said, I’m seeking knowledge, not expressing a view. I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article - Reader’s Digest, possibly? - which stated that it was once believed a heavier-than-air flying machine would be impossible, but now we have all sorts of flying machines. So I’d be curious as to whether my example of a supersonic helicopter could ever be ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 30, 2024 10:17:27 GMT -5
The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view) For instance, when we were discussing things in the ChatGPT thread, I asked the AI if a supersonic helicopter will ever be possible, with rotor blades capable of withstanding supersonic speeds. The answer, and I even looked on Quora, seemed to be a definitive “NO”. That’s my personal example, other examples could include faster-than-light travel, time travel, etc. For anyone with a scientific head here, going by my example, can we completely rule out a supersonic helicopter for all eternity, or could it be within the realms of reality, if a little improbable? Like I said, I’m seeking knowledge, not expressing a view. I can’t remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article - Reader’s Digest, possibly? - which stated that it was once believed a heavier-than-air flying machine would be impossible, but now we have all sorts of flying machines. So I’d be curious as to whether my example of a supersonic helicopter could ever be ruled out. I don't think it can be absolutely ruled out, because the concept doesn't contradict fundamental laws of nature; we'd just need a machine sturdy enough, with sufficient thrust. The practical problems I see is that there might be no material capable of handling the stresses involved, or that the modifications required to gain enough thrust would change the thing from a helicopter into something else. So rather than completely impossible, I would say that it is not practical at this time. However, I wouldn't say that it's as impossible as, say, cooling one's kitchen by leaving the door of the fridge open all night.
|
|
|
Post by DoghouseReilly on Apr 30, 2024 10:39:10 GMT -5
The fascinating responses here have got me thinking: Is there anything that we can definitively state WILL NEVER occur because it’d be scientifically impossible? (Asking a question here of knowledgable people, not expressing a view) Saying that something is scientifically impossible would mean the speaker is mistaking his model for reality. I don't think it's responsible to ever say something is impossible. You can, however, say that you have a rigorously tested model which does not allow for such-and-such. But I again want to be careful with elevating solipsism anywhere near to the utility and success of the scientific method. I see so many people infer that "we can't really know anything" when the honesty of the scientific method is laid out for them.
|
|