By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Cant prove that I didnt see a unicorn at the bottom of my garden last night - but why would it? Onus is on me to prove such a claim. Hypothesis - there is a unicorn, i saw it Obtain evidence - set up cameras Detail evidence - show why its not a horse with a hirn strapped to its head Postualte theory regarding reasons behind facts - the unicorn is now fact, how did it come to be there Gather further evidence to back-up theory This is how science works. And if any evidence gathering contradicts' theory, the theory is re-thought. So no, not just assumptions.
Cant prove that I didnt see a unicorn at the bottom of my garden last night - but why would it? Onus is on me to prove such a claim. Hypothesis - there is a unicorn, i saw it Obtain evidence - set up cameras Detail evidence - show why its not a horse with a hirn strapped to its head Postualte theory regarding reasons behind facts - the unicorn is now fact, how did it come to be there Gather further evidence to back-up theory This is how science works. And if any evidence gathering contradicts' theory, the theory is re-thought. So no, not just assumptions.
A scientific approach.... came across Konstantin Raudive after a a brief meeting with publisher Colin Smythe.Open mike theory,random voices picked up on tape.Inconsequentialites like"it is difficult to dance in a train mama" Some say Raudive is now communicating from "the other side".
I agree it doesn't mean there wasn't but a fundamental part of scientific method is the use of Occam's razor, which is basically :
"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected"
The gullible bit was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but there is a well known principle called the Placebo effect, which is what I think is at play here.
"The gullible bit was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but there is a well known principle called the Placebo effect, which is what I think is at play here"
You're so wrong there, science doesn't just make assumptions, as mentioned earlier on of the principle used is to minimise the assumptions. A scientific theory is only accepted f it can justify its assumptions, can explain observed experimental behaviour, AND make predictions of future observation so that it can be verified by new experiments.
As for trying to proving the non-existence of something, you are obviously on a hiding to nothing. It is more telling, that those who do believe have never been able to produce any verifiable evidence
I'm not that far wrong cliff. Ask any scientists the most basic question, how did we get here? And why? Science has only just discovered DNA. Why would I put my faith in science.?
I'm not that far wrong cliff. Ask any scientists the most basic question, how did we get here? And why? Science has only just discovered DNA. Why would I put my faith in science.?
Because it doesn't claim to have most of the answers. Why would you put your faith in anything which does?
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
Because it doesn't claim to have most of the answers. Why would you put your faith in anything which does?
Because I want to know the answers. Science does claim to know how we got here. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and David Attenborough programs but it cant be proved. I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong I'm just saying you need just as much faith in that than believing god exists.
Because I want to know the answers. Science does claim to know how we got here. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and David Attenborough programs but it cant be proved. I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong I'm just saying you need just as much faith in that than believing god exists.
Science presents the best and fullest answer available at any time from the evidence. These answers are empirical, not absolute, i.e. they stand up to what scrutiny we can apply and don't contradict other scientific findings.If they don't they are discarded or superseded.
So you can go for a partial, not absoutely proven, but evidence-based and road-tested answer, or not.
A magnificent football club, the love of our lives, finding a way to finally have its day in the sun.
Because I want to know the answers. Science does claim to know how we got here. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and David Attenborough programs but it cant be proved. I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong I'm just saying you need just as much faith in that than believing god exists.
Science doesn't really know either,it's good up to a point and then a complete blank.A new set of hypotheses with multiple universes and continua theories - I'm having difficulty coping with just the one. At the end ot the day(sic) you come from somewhere and you go somewhere.To be quite honest I'm not in any great hurry.
Science cant prove there isnt a god or a spirit world can it? Scientist's just make assumptions.
Your assumption that scientists just make assumptions isn't supported by the evidence. My PhD would have been a much less stressful affair were that the case.
Because I want to know the answers. Science does claim to know how we got here. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and David Attenborough programs but it cant be proved. I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong I'm just saying you need just as much faith in that than believing god exists.
Science really doesn't deal in facts. There might be theoretical frameworks and methodological paradigms based on the best evidence available, but nothing's enshrined as absolute fact. On the contrary in fact. It's supposed to be an iterative process of constantly developing understanding.
I don't know if anyone has read Russell Brand's book 'Revolution' that came out a couple of years ago, but one thing that becomes apparent (which I don't think is widely known) is that he is very into religion, especially religions with good gear...
Because I want to know the answers. Science does claim to know how we got here. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and David Attenborough programs but it cant be proved. I'm not saying the big bang theory is wrong I'm just saying you need just as much faith in that than believing god exists.
No no no
The theory of evolution is taught as a, er... yep, theory, in any institution worth its bona fides.
I don't know if anyone has read Russell Brand's book 'Revolution' that came out a couple of years ago, but one thing that becomes apparent (which I don't think is widely known) is that he is very into religion, especially religions with good gear...
A theory with an enormous weight of scientific evidence to support it, but a theory it remains.
That's my point its just a theory,and a relatively new one. With all the scientific breakthrough's we're none the wiser to how we got here. I'm not trying to bash science or scientists,far from it, I was reacting more to Cliffs tongue in cheek post about gullible people believing in things that science cant explain . I think science and a belief in god are compatible. Even Darwin believed there's a god.
That's my point its just a theory,and a relatively new one. With all the scientific breakthrough's we're none the wiser to how we got here. I'm not trying to bash science or scientists,far from it, I was reacting more to Cliffs tongue in cheek post about gullible people believing in things that science cant explain . I think science and a belief in god are compatible. Even Darwin believed there's a god.
The evidence suggests that Darwin's faith was practically destroyed by his scientific work. A source of great consternation to him, as his beloved wife remained devout.
That's my point its just a theory,and a relatively new one. With all the scientific breakthrough's we're none the wiser to how we got here. I'm not trying to bash science or scientists,far from it, I was reacting more to Cliffs tongue in cheek post about gullible people believing in things that science cant explain . I think science and a belief in god are compatible. Even Darwin believed there's a god.
[Post edited 26 May 2016 21:46]
"With all the scientific breakthroughs we're none the wiser to how we got here."
We really, really are.
And a little wiser each time a new fossil is found, a new piece of DNA sequenced etc, etc.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
