Why is The Religion Catagory Most Popular

[S.A.M.]

This is at BEST semantics, and at worst collimated crap.

Prove the speed of light, with marshmallows. I remember someone posting this simple exercise before. If I claim that the speed of light is X, and prove X with this experiment within a reasonable margin of error, how is this an experiment of disproof?

Just a simple example. Of course, ironically, I have disproved your claim with evidence.


I must add that Skinwalker dispatched with that rubbish statement quite elegantly...I posted before I read

Its scientific thinking, which is essential for the ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience. Your example is merely proof of pseudoscientific thinking. Correlation is not causation.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I also make note that samCDkey has not understood her own provided link on Popper's falsifiability. This train of thought involves the illustration of a logically possible counterexample...an exception to the rule as it were.

Falsifiability on its own is NOT a proof or a method of proving a claim, it is as quoted in the article "not a sufficient property"; a claim must still be proven.

 

[S.A.M.]

I also make note that samCDkey has not understood her own provided link on Popper's falsifiability. This train of thought involves the illustration of a logically possible counterexample...an exception to the rule as it were.

Falsifiability on its own is NOT a proof or a method of proving a claim, it is as quoted in the article "not a sufficient property"; a claim must still be proven.

It is a necessary property but is not sufficient on its own.

Also falsifiable does not mean false.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. — Albert Einstein

 

[Enterprise-D]

Its scientific thinking, which is essential for the ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience. Your example is merely proof of pseudoscientific thinking. Correlation is not causation.

Philosophical claptrap aside, sam, it is clear that falsifiability does not mean that all scientific claims are proven by it's polar opposite.

 

[Saquist]

e.g. any hypothesis in science must fulfil 3 conditions:
1. it must allow for observation
2. it must be testable
3. it must give similar results on repeated testing by the same observer and by separate observers.

The last requirement means that any hypothesis is theoretically subject to disproof or falsification by separate observers.

This is a necessary criteria that separates science from pseudoscience.

evolution and String theory remain theories for a reason and I believe it is on premise 2 and 3 we run into some problems...

 

[S.A.M.]

Philosophical claptrap aside, sam, it is clear that falsifiability does not mean that all scientific claims are proven by it's polar opposite.

I think you are incredibly confused.:shrug:

 

[Enterprise-D]

I think you are incredibly confused.:shrug:

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. :shrug: I thought I was succinct when I said an exception to the rule is not a proof. From this you were supposed to figure out, hey, maybe claims have to be proven, before we can postulate a logical exception?

Let's leave it at Skinwalker addressed your dense statement best. 'Can only be disproved' indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. :shrug:

Let's leave it at Skinwalker addressed your dense statement best. 'Can only be disproved' indeed.

Only because you used the words "burden of proof", in science that is not the same as evidence for, its the absence of evidence against.

That is why statistics is based on disproving a hypothesis not proving it. All one can provide is the margin of probability based on available evidence.

This in turn is based on the assumption that the model is corrected for all confounding variables.

 

[SkinWalker]

evolution and String theory remain theories for a reason and I believe it is on premise 2 and 3 we run into some problems...

I'm not expert or even a novice on the subject of string theory. But evolution is a fact that has been both testable and verifiable in that predictions have been made and hold. Predictions that would refute evolution have likewise been made and they are not demonstrated. So evolution is, absolutely, scientific and a fact based on the best available evidence. To refute evolution as a fact (and a theory -things *can* be both), there are many things that would instantly falsify it. A fossil rabbit in the Precambrian to quote a famous (perhaps infamous) example.

 

[Enterprise-D]

e.g. any hypothesis in science must fulfil 3 conditions:
1. it must allow for observation
2. it must be testable
3. it must give similar results on repeated testing by the same observer and by separate observers.

The last requirement means that any hypothesis is theoretically subject to disproof or falsification by separate observers.

This is a necessary criteria that separates science from pseudoscience.

evolution and String theory remain theories for a reason and I believe it is on premise 2 and 3 we run into some problems...

As does the god delusion. Such a theory is unobservable except through romanticism, it is obviously untestable and therefore repeated testing is unachievable. Far less for obtaining similar results...how many thousand religions are/were there?

 

[Saquist]

Theory= FACT?

A curious defintion many of you adopt.

 

[S.A.M.]

Theory= FACT?

A curious defintion many of you adopt.

A scientific theory is different from the lay definition of theory.

All scientific hypotheses are theoretically subject to falsification, however this does not mean that they have no supporting evidence or even that they are false.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Ah...I see where this mess came from sam. I only used the phrase insofar as language was concerned. To spell it out...the claimant of any theory should provide proof of such. Since theists have failed miserably to put forth anything of substance insofar as the existence of god is concerned, why should I be expected to believe it wholesale?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah...I see where this mess came from sam. I only used the phrase insofar as language was concerned. To spell it out...the claimant of any theory should provide proof of such. Since theists have failed miserably to put forth anything of substance insofar as the existence of god is concerned, why should I be expected to believe it wholesale?

Probably you missed this too:

You should know that science uses evidence every day to support claims. "Prove" is such a loaded word. Lets toss that one out and just say that we are demanding that the proponents of religious claims support their arguments with data. Or at least show how their claims can potentially be falsifiable. Otherwise, we must discard the claims altogether since they simply aren't useful to science. They may be completely useful to the deluded masses in maintaining their delusions, but to science and the rationally minded they're useless.

Sure, but you can only support claims that are empirical, testable and repeatable. Otherwise they don't fall within the purview of science anyway.

And you should know that anything that is not potentially falsifiable is not science.

In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability is the logical property of empirical statements, related to contingency and defeasibility, that they must admit of logical counterexamples. In essence, for an assertion to be falsifiable, it must be theoretically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false.

On theism

Theism may not be falsifiable, if the existence of God is asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is an unobservable transcendental being then one cannot disprove his existence by observation. It remains quite consistent for a theist to agree that the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and even that the proposition 'God exists' is not scientific, but is a matter of faith alone. Theists may also claim to have presentable evidence that verifies the existence of God. This is, of course, a matter of interest for anyone who places stock in witnesses who claim to have seen God or ideas like natural theology—the argument from design and other a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. (See non-cognitivism.) However, arguments relating to alleged actions and eye-witness accounts, rather than to the existence of God, may be falsifiable. See nontheism for further information.

And language must be precise in science.

 

[GeoffP]

Its scientific thinking, which is essential for the ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience. Your example is merely proof of pseudoscientific thinking. Correlation is not causation.

It is in my papers. :bugeye:

 

[Saquist]

And language must be precise in science.

I agree and I believe amaeturs following scientific paths should attempt to be precise when speaking.

I know what I'am saying when I say theory and when I say fact in lay terms or English as a language with terms of specific means.

I have no problem entertaining this idea

Theory: derivitive of Accepted.
But fact it is not.

 

[darksidZz]

Religion is a sickness yakumo, and I am your cure. You will be re-brainwashed into thinking correctly, as opposed to your now cluttered way of behaving. In all honesty I see Christians doing this... they will yap about being open but then turn around anything you say that's fact into a religious item, or something to prove it.

Also I'm sleepie.

 

[VitalOne]

Because its controversial and people just love controversy...

 

[Enterprise-D]

Nit-picking at the precision of language doesn't get you out of the fact (Sam) that it is illogical to stand on the premise that all claims in science are proven by disproving the opposite postulation. It is clear to the rest of the planet that one can prove a claim.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nit-picking at the precision of language doesn't get you out of the fact (Sam) that it is illogical to stand on the premise that all claims in science are proven by disproving the opposite postulation. It is clear to the rest of the planet that one can prove a claim.

I'm guessing you don't work in science, nit-picking at precision in language is critical to a good paper. Please show me one peer-reviewed paper with language indicating a definite proof of a claim in science.