:
|
The whole point I was trying to make is that if ID decided to say "God made the protocell" it would be as valid a hypothesis since it's a bit simpler than an oily bilayer with water and other elements inside spontaneously living. It's easier to understand and does not violate on of the key doctrines of biology, that "life does not come spontaneously from non-life".
|
But it does violate the key doctrine of science, which is falsifiability. Also, no one is suggesting that life spontaneously came from anything. The main point of abiogenesis hypotheses is to explain how non-living organic matter can gradate towards living structures. Invoking spontaneity is not an explanation.
:
|
This I also accept. Math is the only truth since numbers don't change and are completely devoid of the need of an observer (3 is 3, even if your not looking at it the right way).
|
That's not exactly what I meant, but, yeah. I was thinking of mathematical proofs.
:
|
Exactly. But, since only math has proof and everything else is theory or hypothesis, how can I use theory to explain things scientifically? Surely I have to assume the theory is true. I have to accept/believe the theory. Or, I have to assume it is not true and find a new theory/belief.
|
Proof does not exist, but evidence does! Evidence is what supports theories, but evidence is also what theories are explanations of.
:
|
I would say accepting any scientific theory as "true" is believing science.
|
We only accept any scientific as true
until such time as it is shown to be otherwise. If it were faith then we would be certain of it, but scientifically speaking, we can never be certain. This is another case of a commonly used word having a different meaning in the scientific context.
:
|
Not accepting new theories which go against the old ones occurs where scientists hold beliefs (best example: Einstein and quantum mechanics)
|
Scientists are going to support theories based upon their own research. Sometimes different observations contradict earlier ones. This is when science undergoes one of its changes, it is why we have debates, it is why we repeat each other's experiments, it is why we have peer-reviews. It is when we try to solve the problem and come out with greater understanding of the particular field. This is what Einstein was doing when he searched for a Unified theory to reconcile the physics of the very large with the physics of the very small. He failed, and we now know that we cannot so easily do away with quantum physics. He was also old and a human being. People make mistakes! Again, that is why so many people are involved in the scientific method.
:
|
Fail. The idea that I science should force people to accept it is just as stupid as the idea that creationists should force people to accept ID. Leave faith alone, unless it's being forced down your throat or into your kids.
|
I ballsed that one up. I meant QFT.
:
|
If that true, lulz... and sry for flipping out.
|
Cool.
:
|
True, but simple experimentation will show ME that the quartz needs to be there for any affect to be perceived. The assumption appears valid. The Null Hypothesis that "Quartz helps" is held.
|
Which corresponds to the psychosomatic effect. If it is your belief that the quartz has the effect that actually creates the effect, of course it will only work when the quartz is there. You are as much the subject of the experiment as the quartz, and it does not do to be the subject of your own psychological investigation. You'd also need a placebo as a control, and for that to work you need to be unaware of the placebo (that was a peer-review of your experiment).
:
|
Again, it is impossible for this to be considered science. As you said yourself, it is "faith". The idea I was trying to get across is that it is not blind faith. A colour-blind person may believe the sky is green. This would not be based on blind faith, but their personal observation. In both cases the observation may be flawed, but the belief (which by definition isn't science-based, but more based on observation) is based on SOMETHING. It is not blind faith.
|
There may be an observation, but the explanation is indeed faith. We've all seen the Westboro Church claim that various deaths are somehow God's wrath for lax attitudes towards homosexuality. The observation exists (the deaths actually happened) but the explanation is completely unfounded, is not testable, defies all logic etc. This is where science deviates from faith- not at the observation, but at the explanation.
:
|
People who say they've spoken to Jesus might honestly believe they have (and since you weren't there you can't be sure they have not, even though it's extremely unlikely). They do not need blind faith if they think (or have) spoken to a higher power calling itself JC.
|
You cannot say that they have nor that they haven't. Not falsifiable, not science, faith. Again.
:
|
Um... gravity exists. It's observable, calculable (to a degree) and we've a reasonable idea that it's caused by matter. The nitty-gritty stuff (i.e. the graviton) is still heavily theory {there's 2 big competing theories at least right now}. It is not a belief... unless you choose to believe one of the theories over a different one... or if you believe it's a pulling force, since it appears to be more of a pushing one.
|
The effect of masses attracting other masses is an observation, and effect. Gravity and the explanations of of it are theory. It behaves as an attractive force.
Proof does not exist! Only observational evidence!