Science is not immune from requiring faith...

[Idle Mind]

When you are learning complex principles and concepts throughout your school careers, it is very important to start with the basics. Which is why people have incomplete understandings of a lot of ideas until they are corrected by further study of the material (ie. a higher level course with the same subject matter). It's not a matter of forcing a student to take something on faith, it's a matter of them understanding the general idea of the principle before the nitty gritty, and often complex, details are divulged.

Think of this: when you are in elementary school, learning grammar and sentence structure for the first time, what do they tell you? You cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction (and, but, because, etc.). The teachers tell you it's against the rules. Why? Because try explaining the concept of complex sentences to a first grader. Try explaining what a clause is, and what qualifies a sentence as a sentence. They won't understand, because they don't know the basics. It isn't until high school, where multi-clause sentences are first taught, that using 'and', or 'but' at the beginning of a sentence is accepted.

It is the same with scientific concepts. Start with the overall concept, with the basics, and fill in the difficult details afterwards. It is a tool to make the teaching process easier on both the teachers and the students, not to make students believe in something that isn't true.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

All conclusions are founding on faith, in the most basic sense. That's all I have to say.

 

[francois]

All conclusions are founding on faith, in the most basic sense. That's all I have to say.

I disagree. We know with a great deal of certainty that heliocentrism is correct. We do not know that it is absolutely true just as we can't absolutely know that anything is true, except of course in matters pertaining to mathematics and proofs. We assume that the earth revolves around the sun because there's a great deal of evidence that indicates that that's the case. That's not faith because it's an assumption based on evidence. The greater and better the evidence is, the less faithy it is.

If, however, you believed in it for reasons that had nothing to do with evidence, then yeah, it would be faith because it's belief without evidence. That's what faith is. Faith is not something one ought to be proud of having.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I have a theory on religious fanatics who beleive in creationism.

No matter how utterly mindless their posts are, and no matter how soundly, simply concisely and completely you refute their arguments, they will never get the point - let alone admit to having been put straight.

I call it the Fundaligionism Filter Theory

Prediction - having been put straight and then asked by another poster if they now understand where they went wrong, the Fundaligionist will deny that there was anything wrong with their previous posts.

So does that statement mean you've learnt something about the scientific method? Can you look back and recognise the gross inaccuracies in your original post?

what gross inaccuracies?

haha...I knew he was going to answer like that.

Theory proved?

I present this for peer review

 

[Yorda]

I disagree. We know with a great deal of certainty that heliocentrism is correct.

the problem is that all motion is relative, so we might as well say that everything revolves around the moon.

 

[Pandaemoni]

the problem is that all motion is relative, so we might as well say that everything revolves around the moon.

All uniform motion is relative.

If you accept Einsteinian relativity, then accelerated movement is not relative, and the planets are accelerating around the Sun because their direction and speeds are changing. Because of that acceleration, it's no longer true that any description of the motion is valid (like, say, an earth centered one).

Imagine this: Say that you choose to describe all motion relative to yourself. You know the distance between yourself and a distant quasar (let's say 10 billion light years). Now suppose you twirl in a circle, taking one second to do so. If you make the assumption that you are stationary (because, hey, it's all relative) then that distant quasar just moved in a huge circle 2 x pi x 10 billion light years in one second, millions of billions of times faster than the speed the light. Happily, Einstein is safe because he would definitely conclude that you spun around, not the universe as a whole.

 

[Myles]

"Ah, I found a bunch of fossils and bones. Ah, I shall date them. Hmm... I going to have to say that this one came from this, and this from this and then that. Yes, these things...hmm...evolved! Yes, they came from each other. I've never seen it, but I shall have faith that my intepretation is right. C came from B which came from A. You just got to have faith my friends, that I interpreted the data right, since I've never seen this happen."

That's pretty much how it seems to me. What say you ?

I would say that's pretty much how it seems to you because .....

 

[Myles]

I have a theory on religious fanatics who beleive in creationism.

No matter how utterly mindless their posts are, and no matter how soundly, simply concisely and completely you refute their arguments, they will never get the point - let alone admit to having been put straight.

I call it the Fundaligionism Filter Theory

Prediction - having been put straight and then asked by another poster if they now understand where they went wrong, the Fundaligionist will deny that there was anything wrong with their previous posts.

They are never put straight other than from your perspective. They have crackpot ideas resulting from a lack of understanding of the topic they are supposed to be discussing and whatever is said to them will be accepted or rejected according to their existing views.

The thing I find hard to put up with is what appears to be a total resistance to education. I recently suggested to someone that an easy way to get a handle on genetics would be to read up on Mendel's experiments with peas. Did he ? Of course not. He continued to use variations on his original fatuous claim, apparently without realizing that he was repeating himself.


This attitude can partly accounted for in terns of stubborness, i.e,. not wanting to lose an argument; but I believe it's more a matter of intelligence or lack of it. It's a mistake to assume that someone necessarily understands precisely what is being said to him.


Anyone who takes the Bible literally as Creationists do, can make no useful contribution to a discussion on evolution, otherwise they would not accept a book which, on examination by a critical mind, can be shown to be riddled with contradictions.






Theory proved?

I present this for peer review

 

[Arkantos]

You (synthesizer-patel) are being philosophically ignorant. It's sad that you are stuck in the box of the mentality of scientism.

 

[visceral_instinct]

The difference is that science makes assumptions based on evidence and is ready to revise those assumptions if proven wrong. Religion on the other hand dispenses with the concept of evidence or proof entirely and extols blind faith without either of those.

 

[Arkantos]

haha

 

[synthesizer-patel]

You (synthesizer-patel) are being philosophically ignorant. It's sad that you are stuck in the box of the mentality of scientism.

then enlighten me

 

[Arkantos]

What? I'm holding you to the same standards you hold me to. If you haven't figured it out by now, you are lost.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

What? I'm holding you to the same standards you hold me to.

if that was truly the case you would do what I asked

 

[superluminal]

"Ah, I found a bunch of fossils and bones. Ah, I shall date them. Hmm... I going to have to say that this one came from this, and this from this and then that. Yes, these things...hmm...evolved! Yes, they came from each other. I've never seen it, but I shall have faith that my intepretation is right. C came from B which came from A. You just got to have faith my friends, that I interpreted the data right, since I've never seen this happen."

That's pretty much how it seems to me. What say you ?

There's no need to respond this other than to say (as others already have) that you need to learn a bit more about how these conclusions were reached before you make such - ahem - uninformed statements.

 

[Myles]

What? I'm holding you to the same standards you hold me to. If you haven't figured it out by now, you are lost.

Oh dear, not the Lake of fire again or some similar Biblical bullshit ?

 

[Arkantos]

Lol at your assumptions that I'm some religious person.

 

[Myles]

Lol at your assumptions that I'm some religious person.

Woe unto you if you do not accept Jesis. Ask Adstar and he will tell you that you are heading for the Lake of Fire BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT RELIGIOUS

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

I say you should study the matter before you go and publicly embarrass yourself.

What was wrong with it?

 

[Arkantos]

Woe unto you if you do not accept Jesis. Ask Adstar and he will tell you that you are heading for the Lake of Fire BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT RELIGIOUS