All Scientists on This Forum Please Check in Here!

[FallaciesAbound]

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

Therefore, it deals with innuendo and speculation and from that a hypothesis is derived which is then considered to be fact if agreed upon within the scientific community.

Need I say more? Yes, there is a certain amount of probability specified in some scientific claims, by necessity. Complex systems, such as the human body, have a tremendous amount of variability in them. This is why one study will show coffee is good for you one week, and bad for you the next. The real problem is how the media reports these claims, jumping on every study before it can be properly verified and vetted.

However, the bulk of science does deal in demonstrable, falsifiable, and undeniable fact. A wing of a given camber will still fail to produce lift if the airspeed drops below a certain point, no matter how you choose to think the science is "made up".

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by FallaciesAbound

Need I say more? Yes, there is a certain amount of probability specified in some scientific claims, by necessity. Complex systems, such as the human body, have a tremendous amount of variability in them. This is why one study will show coffee is good for you one week, and bad for you the next. The real problem is how the media reports these claims, jumping on every study before it can be properly verified and vetted.

However, the bulk of science does deal in demonstrable, falsifiable, and undeniable fact. A wing of a given camber will still fail to produce lift if the airspeed drops below a certain point, no matter how you choose to think the science is "made up".

No.

You needn't say anymore.

Oh, dear, I mentioned the word speculation and the definition I posted didn't include that word.

That definitely proves I am wrong.

NOT!

The definition explained exactly what I stated, IMO, about science.

Seriously.

I made a grave mistake and you caught me on it.

I said I didn't use the word speculation and I did.

Oh, my.

How awful.

I also stated that, IMO, science doesn't deal with fact.

I have bigger fish to fry.

This subject, for me, is closed.

Later.

[stompk]

Just wondering, do I need a piece of paper that says I passed the requirements of the establishment and am now brainwashed into the indoctrination that science is meant to disprove God?

or

can I consider myself a scientist, because I experiment every chance I get, and I read up on stuff I don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I credit it all to God?

[superted]

I don't believe its possible to keep an open mind and yet credit it all to god. The very essence of science is to constantly move forward to discover new horizons, ever changing theories as we march forward. If the answer to everything is god, then how can that be described as being open minded? Surely that by it's very nature is the definition of closed mindedness?

[stompk]

Originally Posted by superted

I don't believe its possible to keep an open mind and yet credit it all to god. The very essence of science is to constantly move forward to discover new horizons, ever changing theories as we march forward. If the answer to everything is god, then how can that be described as being open minded? Surely that by it's very nature is the definition of closed mindedness?

Well, since you don't capitalize God's name, instead of assuming you don't know proper grammar, I'm going to assume through scientific deduction that you are an atheist, and therefore you have helped make my point.

Denying the existence of God, is denying you own existence. Consider yourselves forewarned.

[superted]

Would you agree there's no scientific proof that god doesn't exist? Yea?

Would you also agree there's no scientific proof that he does exist? Yea?

So to believe one way or another doesn't come down to which side can prove existence or non-existence. For me anyway, it comes to down to likelihood/probability.

As incredibly unlikely as it is, it is scientifically possible (theoretically) that life formed from inorganic molecules in the ocean. It didn't need a supernatural power! But of course I'm not ruling out the possibility it was a supernatural power, I just find it very unlikely. Even more unlikely than random inorganic molecules just coming together at the right time, at the right place, in the right quantities, etc.

"Consider yourselves forewarned" What's that about? I can never understand all those that go on about the 'loving' and 'caring' god, yet you need to 'warn' me. Why would I be punished for living my life to high morals and standards, as well as flowing the rules and laws of my country? In the next 40 years of my life I was contribute to society more than most....yet you 'forewarn' me?

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by stompk

Just wondering, do I need a piece of paper that says I passed the requirements of the establishment and am now brainwashed into the indoctrination that science is meant to disprove God?

or

can I consider myself a scientist, because I experiment every chance I get, and I read up on stuff I don't understand, and keep an open mind, and I credit it all to God?

Thanks for checking in Stompk.

Any piece of paper will suffice.

[stompk]

You did say, "any piece of paper"

[superted]

Yep I'd say all your educational achievements are on bog roll!

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by stompk

You did say, "any piece of paper"