# Reliability of Science.



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 12, 2014)

I’ve never posted a thread; possibly because I have never had something I wanted to discuss that I hadn’t seen discussed before; and, that being said, I apologize if this has “been done” already. I’m young and am far from knowing much of anything to any appreciable degree (though I do have a few things settled); in fact, it seems like I “know” less as I go . I see on this forum lots of attempted scientific explanations (most of them mine), so this is my question: How reliable is science really?

Its common knowledge that “science” changes continually. We find new things and therefore have to remove, or at least amend, the old. Newton was right, though he knew there were holes in his theories, until Einstein came along. But even Einstein’s theories break-down when encountered with the obscure phenomenon of a black hole:  thus, string theory. The point is: Science is continually changing, so how is it we can depend on it for absolute truth? What if there are some things about the universe/cosmos our science simply doesn’t have the ability to describe? What if some things are just "unknowable"?

I’m really interested in thoughts about this.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

You can't. That's the point. All we have are best fit models as we understand things now. 

Science is a journey, not a destination. 

It's when you have people too concerned with destination in science that you get "global warming" and the like.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 12, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> What if some things are just "unknowable"?



There is really only one way to find out. Keep looking.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2014)

I think what I can "rely" on about science is that it will continually try to correct itself. At one time science said you bleed a person out to cure the common cold. I appreciate they didn't leave it at that.
Science has solved/invented lots of things.
Science is also working on lots of things and basically we get "updated" as they continue working.
And as Griz said something cant be unknowable until you try to know it. What is unknowable today might be solved tomorrow by a discovery of something else.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 12, 2014)

660griz said:


> There is really only one way to find out. Keep looking.



What, if anything, exists beyond and before our universe?  I think that is not knowable.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What, if anything, exists beyond and before our universe?  I think that is not knowable.



The Big Bang could have been the result of matter being drawn into a Black Hole, being condensed into a singularity inside and then violently expanding upon exit.
As more and more Black Holes form in our Universe now and gobble up matter it is conceivable that eventually it may come down to one Black hole being left and it all starting over again...OR...right now matter that is taken into a Black Hole might exit beyond our Universe?
Right now it is not knowable. What we may know in 10 years, 20, 100...is going to be interesting.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The Big Bang could have been the result of matter being drawn into a Black Hole, being condensed into a singularity inside and then violently expanding upon exit.
> As more and more Black Holes form in our Universe now and gobble up matter it is conceivable that eventually it may come down to one Black hole being left and it all starting over again...OR...right now matter that is taken into a Black Hole might exit beyond our Universe?
> Right now it is not knowable. What we may know in 10 years, 20, 100...is going to be interesting.




One black hole gobbling everything and ending up in a final big crunch would violate our understanding of entropy, so that theory isn't very popular. 

However, with Hawking radiation, maybe what's left outside of the black hole is less orderly in terms of energy than what went into it. Or perhaps the inside of a black hole isn't as uniform as we suppose it is.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One black hole gobbling everything and ending up in a final big crunch would violate our understanding of entropy, so that theory isn't very popular.
> 
> However, with Hawking radiation, maybe what's left outside of the black hole is less orderly in terms of energy than what went into it. Or perhaps the inside of a black hole isn't as uniform as we suppose it is.



I am fairly certain it isn't as easy as "God did it".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2014)

As we gain knowledge it creates more questions we never had the knowledge to ask. It is as if you know less as you go. 
Like Walt said, science will continually try to correct itself. Science isn't changing, just man's discoveries.
I differ from most Christians in that I believe God is the Great Scientist who uses science to create and sustain life.
I believe it is OK for Science & Religion to co-exist. Most Christians are OK with scientific explanations of things like rainbows and reproduction, but not with creation & death. Mostly science is OK for everything in between creation & death. Creation and death are directly from God's choice and science has no part in either is what most Christians believe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2014)

With regards to the reliability of science, it is no different than welding, auto mechanics, medicine or anything else.  It's only as good as the integrity of the people conducting it.  As Striper pointed out, when you have one or a group of scientist pushing an agenda under the guise of science it's reliability is dubious at best.  I would echo it was the same with evolution resulting in it being the only view being taught in public schools, but that's just my opinion and there's no need to beat a dead horse.

One other problem is when scientist attempt to extend the scope of science to answer philosophical questions.  It simply cannot do that, but many none the less accept that it can.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am fairly certain it isn't as easy as "God did it".



"God did it," isn't as easy as it would seem. 

I may wisecrack at believers about God being a cop out, and it may be true for some of their flock, but for others they have to work to believe in spite of what they can see and experience and that's not easy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With regards to the reliability of science, it is no different than welding, auto mechanics, medicine or anything else.  It's only as good as the integrity of the people conducting it.  As Striper pointed out, when you have one or a group of scientist pushing an agenda under the guise of science it's reliability is dubious at best.  I would echo it was the same with evolution resulting in it being the only view being taught in public schools, but that's just my opinion and there's no need to beat a dead horse.
> 
> One other problem is when scientist attempt to extend the scope of science to answer philosophical questions.  It simply cannot do that, but many none the less accept that it can.



Science can't answer philosophical questions but it can prove the scientific method God uses for his creation and maintenance of his creation. 
Science in school is only teacing science. If a parent feels his child needs philosophy then that is a different subject. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a Philosophy teacher using science either.
Students in science class are taught that a rainbow is refraction of light, a scientific principle. To teach the reason God made the rainbow as a sign of his covenant is a philosophical question that shouldn't be addressed in science class.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> "God did it," isn't as easy as it would seem.
> 
> I may wisecrack at believers about God being a cop out, and it may be true for some of their flock, but for others they have to work to believe in spite of what they can see and experience and that's not easy.



The science part of God is easy to grasp. Some philosophical questions I have can only be answered through faith. There is no way around faith being a big part of believing in God. 
At some point one just has to believe it or not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The science part of God is easy to grasp. .



In all seriousness, and as an honest question, what is the scientific part of God?


----------



## Melvin4730 (Aug 13, 2014)

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm


----------



## bullethead (Aug 13, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> http://www.creationism.org/heinze/SciEvidGodLife.htm



What experiment did Stanley Miller perform that showed us what God is made of and who created God?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In all seriousness, and as an honest question, what is the scientific part of God?



I'm kinda skrachin my head on that on a bit too.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 14, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm kinda skrachin my head on that on a bit too.



That makes me feel a ton better. I thought I was missing something, but since we're both left wondering...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 14, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In all seriousness, and as an honest question, what is the scientific part of God?



I thought I showed my beliefs concerning God being the Great Scientist/Architect in my previous posts.
Science can't answer philosophical questions but it can prove the scientific method God uses for his creation and maintenance of his creation. Look at DNA, genetics, reproduction, how the brain works with our body and spirit, human circulatory design & function, everything actually that God made using the scientific part of his persona to do so. 
Some Christians say God doesn't use science, that science is man's way of trying to figure out how everything works. I do not believe this to be the case. Even if we never figured out how God did it, the science is still there. Not ever discovering God's method(science), doesn't mean it isn't there.

The physiological, psychological, and spiritual aspects of the human all comprise God's temple. What is harder to understand is why God made the Earth compatible for life and  and why did he think it necessary to use science in his design of us? I understand we were made for his glory but why didn't he put us on Jupiter or the Sun? Why didn't he make us something other than human? 
Couldn't he have done something more along the lines of a Simcity? I don't believe God had to make me human in order to give me freewill. I'm assuming dogs have freewill and plant pollination is random. 
The physiological part of God that is hard to understand is what part of my destiny does God control, I control, Satan control, or randomness control. Where is the wonderful order of God's control if I have freewill? Why no randomness allowed in creation but suddenly it is after creation. 
I'm not doubting God's work and I'm glad he did use science, I just can't connect all of the dots in how everything works. It actually doesn't matter because I have faith in his work including his Son.
But when most Christians say it is wrong to use science or randomness for creation, then I say don't use it after creation. Don't use science to explain God's symbol the rainbow. Don't use it to explain the miracle of childbirth.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought I showed my beliefs concerning God being the Great Scientist/Architect in my previous posts.
> Science can't answer philosophical questions but it can prove the scientific method God uses for his creation and maintenance of his creation. Look at DNA, genetics, reproduction, how the brain works with our body and spirit, human circulatory design & function, everything actually that God made using the scientific part of his persona to do so.
> Some Christians say God doesn't use science, that science is man's way of trying to figure out how everything works. I do not believe this to be the case. Even if we never figured out how God did it, the science is still there. Not ever discovering God's method(science), doesn't mean it isn't there.
> 
> ...



" I know all the hairs on your head from the beginning of time".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought I showed my beliefs concerning God being the Great Scientist/Architect in my previous posts.
> Science can't answer philosophical questions but it can prove the scientific method God uses for his creation and maintenance of his creation. Look at DNA, genetics, reproduction, how the brain works with our body and spirit, human circulatory design & function, everything actually that God made using the scientific part of his persona to do so.
> Some Christians say God doesn't use science, that science is man's way of trying to figure out how everything works. I do not believe this to be the case. Even if we never figured out how God did it, the science is still there. Not ever discovering God's method(science), doesn't mean it isn't there.
> 
> ...




I agree that science and religion are probably two languages trying to tell the same story. One is literal, the other is figurative. 

Still, in everything I've seen, I can't attribute any of it to God, or Allah, or Buddha, or any of them. 

It's like we're looking across a great chasm at each other. One represents the scientific point, the other the religious. I think that one day a bridge will be constructed to let us both pass between the two promontories but that the bridge itself will be constructed in such a way that neither side remains the same as it currently is. 

I, for one, seriously doubt that science will ever achieve the GUT. (Grand Unified Theory) There will always be another level, or layer, that underpins everything that we can't fully grasp. I also doubt that religion will ever fully adopt what science has to say about the Creator, since abandoning one God for another that you don't know anything about, and never could, is beyond the will of most people. Case in point, it took me a long time to admit to myself that I was Agnostic. I claimed Catholic up until about 2005, and I still have yet to tell my parents, but that's for their benefit rather than mine. I can live my life honestly enough, and skirt the questions when asked, and still allow them their comfort of thinking that I still believe in the God of Christianity. They know I've been through Hades in my 20's, and they know that it's put me into tough spots with my faith, but I see no reason to dash their illusion just for my own gratification of "coming out". 

I do think that it will be up to the faithful to jump the gap since they're more prone to leaps of faith than scientists are. The scientist would have to know, using their brain rather than their heart, that they could jump the gap or that the bridge will hold them. 

I honestly lost where I was going with this, I know I gave the answer I wanted but then I meandered, but I can't bring myself to delete it, either. 

Sorry.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> " I know all the hairs on your head from the beginning of time".



Which leads up to this:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,.... As two were sold for one farthing; see Gill on Matthew 10:29; so in buying and selling, where more money is laid out, things are bought cheaper; the Persic version reads, "for two barley corns": 

and not one of them is forgotten before God; a single sparrow, a bird of little value and worth, is taken notice and care of by him; it has its life from him, and is provided for with food by him, and is under his protection; nor does he ever forget it, nor can any thing be done to it, without his permission; it cannot be struck, so as to cause it to fall on the ground, or be taken in a snare, or be killed in any shape, without the knowledge of God: his providence reaches to the minutest creatures and things, and much more then to rational creatures, to men; and still more to his dear children, ministers, and apostles.

(Yet some Christians still believe in free will, science & randomness. Strange indeed such beliefs some Christians hold.)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree that science and religion are probably two languages trying to tell the same story. One is literal, the other is figurative.
> 
> Still, in everything I've seen, I can't attribute any of it to God, or Allah, or Buddha, or any of them.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you presented it and didn't delete it.


----------



## Madman (Aug 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What experiment did Stanley Miller perform that showed us what God is made of and who created God?



No one.  God is a self sustaining -self effecting being,  He describes himself as I AM.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With regards to the reliability of science, it is no different than welding, auto mechanics, medicine or anything else.  It's only as good as the integrity of the people conducting it.  As Striper pointed out, when you have one or a group of scientist pushing an agenda under the guise of science it's reliability is dubious at best.  I would echo it was the same with evolution resulting in it being the only view being taught in public schools, but that's just my opinion and there's no need to beat a dead horse.
> 
> One other problem is when scientist attempt to extend the scope of science to answer philosophical questions.  It simply cannot do that, but many none the less accept that it can.



I agree. That's the original premise of my post. Science is a man-made institution; therefore, at least, the way I see it, can't be absolutely right. Close? Maybe. But still not 100%. 
And if you don't want the destination of science to, ultimately, be correct, is the journey even worth taking?




bullethead said:


> I am fairly certain it isn't as easy as "God did it".



Personally, I don't see how that explanation is at all "easy".




Artfuldodger said:


> As we gain knowledge it creates more questions we never had the knowledge to ask. It is as if you know less as you go.
> Like Walt said, science will continually try to correct itself. Science isn't changing, just man's discoveries.
> I differ from most Christians in that I believe God is the Great Scientist who uses science to create and sustain life.
> I believe it is OK for Science & Religion to co-exist. Most Christians are OK with scientific explanations of things like rainbows and reproduction, but not with creation & death. Mostly science is OK for everything in between creation & death. Creation and death are directly from God's choice and science has no part in either is what most Christians believe.




I think this is why the scriptures say God must be accepted by faith. If we had to wait for science, well, we'd be waiting a long time.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm glad you presented it and didn't delete it.



Me too.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I agree. That's the original premise of my post. Science is a man-made institution; therefore, at least, the way I see it, can't be absolutely right. Close? Maybe. But still not 100%.
> And if you don't want the destination of science to, ultimately, be correct, is the journey even worth taking?
> 
> Personally, I don't see how that explanation is at all "easy".
> ...



You really believe science is man-made? Why do Christian parents allow such foolishness in schools?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

This is only part of the following   

Bible study: The God of Science:
Let's begin by looking at GENESIS 1:28. We want to focus on the words which God speaks telling man to subdue the earth and rule over the creatures of the earth. What does the word "subdue" mean? Subdue means to bring something under control for specific purposes. What are some examples of man's subduing the Earth? In order to do this man had to learn about the created things, see how they worked by seeing how they were designed, and then decide what uses might be made of these things. This is nothing more than a definition of science.

MATTHEW 28:19-20 has been called Christ's Great Commission to His Church. Is it reasonable to call GENESIS 1:28 God's Science Commission to mankind?

When God created He also designed. What fields of knowledge would be necessary in order to design a bird? A fish? A star? Designing anything requires knowledge of measurements, stresses, and chemical and mechanical workings. God had to have all this knowledge, and He had to use it to create. Why would God have knowledge of such things? Look at JOB 38:4-6. Here God talks about the measurements He set for the earth. What kinds of knowledge would God need in order to do this? (Hint: geology for one. You name others.) Of course God did not name these sciences. But when we study the earth and what God actually designed and created, we call these the sciences of geology, mathematics, geography, chemistry, mineralogy, and many other sciences, depending upon what we are studying.

Based on what you have learned in this study, is science automatically anti-God? Evolution is simply the pagan attempt to explain what God has so wonderfully and fearfully made. We who know Scripture should not let pagan interpretations decide what is science and what is not science. After all, it was God, the ultimate scientist, who first gave us the Science Commission in GENESIS 1:28.

God is the ultimate scientist. He can design and then create anything that He wants to and it will work. It will even be perfect. As advanced as we like to think that our science is, we are still only learning the basics of what He knew to make the simplest parts of creation. Therefore, because God is a scientist (and much more), and He also wrote the creation account in Genesis by inspiration, we do indeed have an eyewitness account of the creation events,written by a scientist! Give this statement some thought. Although simplified, is this essentially correct and faithful to Scripture?

Close this Bible study with a prayerful reading of PSALM 19.

by Paul A. Bartz

Christian Assemblies International
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/bible-study-god-science


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> You really believe science is man-made? Why do Christian parents allow such foolishness in schools?



So their kids can have a future beyond, "Would you like fries, and a witness story, with that?"


----------



## Melvin4730 (Aug 15, 2014)

Science isn't something man came up with. Science is just a name man gave it. Man is learning what they call science...they didn't create it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> Science isn't something man came up with. Science is just a name man gave it. Man is learning what they call science...they didn't create it.



I'm pretty sure that we did invent the scientific method (i.e. the practice of science).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm pretty sure that we did invent the scientific method (i.e. the practice of science).



God used science but he didn't need to use the scientific method because he already knew the answer. 
Trial and error is as you say, invented or learned by man and also animals. Possibly plants too.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> God used science but he didn't need to use the scientific method because he already knew the answer.
> Trial and error is as you say, invented or learned by man and also animals. Possibly plants too.



Again we get into the assertions that can be made about a deity. There's no way for you to know he used science any more than I know he didn't. Perhaps he picked numbers out of a hat for the constants. Science would dictate that he used thesis, testing, observation, and adjustment (trial and error) to achieve them. There's 0 evidence of that. 

Are you saying that plants have brains? I could see, though it's tenuous at best, an argument to be made as evolution being scientific since it's trial, not so concerned with error or adapting from that error or success, but it's a very long reach and it doesn't hold up well at all.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> You really believe science is man-made? Why do Christian parents allow such foolishness in schools?



Answer to question one.) This has nothing to do with what I personally believe, but, yes, essentially. I'm sorry this upsets you.

Answer to question two.) How is it you're sure my parents are Christian?

The scientific method is the process by which science is conducted. If something has not been put through the rigors of the scientific method it would be called, to take a page from the books of those whom snare at religion, fairy tails and fanciful dreaming. This being known; "science", is man-made. Don't perpetuate ignorance.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The scientific method is the process by which science is conducted. If something has not been put through the rigors of the scientific method it would be called, to take page from the books of those whom snare at religion, fairy tails and fanciful dreaming. This being known; "science", is man-made. Don't perpetuate ignorance.



Whatchyou talkin' bout, Willis?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Whatchyou talkin' bout, Willis?



I replied to the wrong post  sorry 'bout that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I replied to the wrong post  sorry 'bout that.



No worries.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So their kids can have a future beyond, "Would you like fries, and a witness story, with that?"



Stereotypical but still very funny.


----------



## Melvin4730 (Aug 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Answer to question one.) This has nothing to do with what I personally believe, but, yes, essentially. I'm sorry this upsets you.
> 
> Answer to question two.) How is it you're sure my parents are Christian?
> 
> The scientific method is the process by which science is conducted. If something has not been put through the rigors of the scientific method it would be called, to take a page from the books of those whom snare at religion, fairy tails and fanciful dreaming. This being known; "science", is man-made. Don't perpetuate ignorance.



The word Science is not just another word for scientific method, although they are at times interchanged. 

In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[9] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.

Biology, Chemistry, Physics....etc..... are man made terms for the study of things that happen naturally. Rain fall, lightning, pregnancy are all made up of chemical reactions....man made terms for what happens naturally. So, science happens without man. He did not create it, but he did study it through scientific methods, named his findings and orginized the knowledge.

I guess it depends on which definition of science you want to use. I get what you are saying, though. But, I think the original post was asking about the more general definition of science....I could be wrong.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again we get into the assertions that can be made about a deity. There's no way for you to know he used science any more than I know he didn't. Perhaps he picked numbers out of a hat for the constants. Science would dictate that he used thesis, testing, observation, and adjustment (trial and error) to achieve them. There's 0 evidence of that.
> 
> Are you saying that plants have brains? I could see, though it's tenuous at best, an argument to be made as evolution being scientific since it's trial, not so concerned with error or adapting from that error or success, but it's a very long reach and it doesn't hold up well at all.



Not really a centrally located brain but it is spread through out there structure. Plants possess a sensory vocabulary far wider than our perception of them as static. They know when it's cold or hot. They know when it's night & day. They can smell their own fruits’ ripeness. 
In many ways it's more cruel to eat plants than animals. Animals can run from you but plants can't. You are literally eating a helpless being vs a smarter more complex animal capable of running & hiding.

I believe in God. I took science in school. Therefore I know God used science. Science could possibly dictate God used randomness. It doesn't dictate he picked numbers from a hat. It could dictate he used science and free will to get the ball rolling and seeing how his creation evolved.
Maybe he created man and the earth and advised man to subdue the earth. Maybe he created and then gave man free will or limited free will. 
No matter what believers or non-believers, free will believers or predestination believers, science is a given. 
It would be hard to say science is from God if you are an Atheist but I don't see how a deist can say God has no part in using science, has never used science , nor does he condemn science.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Answer to question one.) This has nothing to do with what I personally believe, but, yes, essentially. I'm sorry this upsets you.
> 
> Answer to question two.) How is it you're sure my parents are Christian?
> 
> The scientific method is the process by which science is conducted. If something has not been put through the rigors of the scientific method it would be called, to take a page from the books of those whom snare at religion, fairy tails and fanciful dreaming. This being known; "science", is man-made. Don't perpetuate ignorance.



My ignorance was assuming you or your parents were Christian. I apologize.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 15, 2014)

Melvin4730 said:


> The word Science is not just another word for scientific method, although they are at times interchanged.
> 
> In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[9] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.
> 
> ...



I agree with the two different concepts and I assumed the OP was asking about science and not scientific method.
The OP is correct that man has a lot wrong with understanding science and it's related sub-topics of health, nutrition, and medicine.
One day butter is bad & margarine is good, years later butter is good and margarine is bad. Man is constantly auto-correcting himself even with the concept of scientific method.
The natural or religious way things are happening haven't changed, just man's understanding. This concept is the same regardless of one's belief in a God or a belief in no God.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Aug 18, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree with the two different concepts and I assumed the OP was asking about science and not scientific method.
> The OP is correct that man has a lot wrong with understanding science and it's related sub-topics of health, nutrition, and medicine.
> One day butter is bad & margarine is good, years later butter is good and margarine is bad. Man is constantly auto-correcting himself even with the concept of scientific method.
> The natural or religious way things are happening haven't changed, just man's understanding. This concept is the same regardless of one's belief in a God or a belief in no God.





Melvin4730 said:


> The word Science is not just another word for scientific method, although they are at times interchanged.
> 
> In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[9] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.
> 
> ...





Ignoring to some extent my useless dribble, my original question was: How reliable is science? Obviously, natural and physical laws that govern interactions are not defined by man. But, that is not science, as you seem to think, it's reality. Science is the study of this reality. The study of this reality is conducted through the scientific method; therefore, the scientific method and "science" are the same thing.
My point, to which several enlightening answers have been given, (my favorite being "science is a journey, not a destination". I don't "wholeheartedly" agree with that, but it certainly gave me a new perspective to approach), is, how reliable is this method? What if there are physical things which can never be found through this method or through any means that we will ever be capable of? If they exist, do these things not matter?  

I'm sorry to ask so many "what if" questions (I think them to be deplorable most of the time), but this seems to be a group of thinkers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Ignoring to some extent my useless dribble, my original question was: How reliable is science? Obviously, natural and physical laws that govern interactions are not defined by man. But, that is not science, as you seem to think, it's reality. Science is the study of this reality. The study of this reality is conducted through the scientific method; therefore, the scientific method and "science" are the same thing.
> My point, to which several enlightening answers have been given, (my favorite being "science is a journey, not a destination". I don't "wholeheartedly" agree with that, but it certainly gave me a new perspective to approach), is, how reliable is this method? What if there are physical things which can never be found through this method or through any means that we will ever be capable of? If they exist, do these things not matter?
> 
> I'm sorry to ask so many "what if" questions (I think them to be deplorable most of the time), but this seems to be a group of thinkers.


I'm not sure "reliable" is the best way to view this. Science is ever learning, ever changing and ever improving. Hard to stop that process, put it on pause and then ask how reliable it is. The second you take it off pause a new discovery can be made that changes the direction. Does that make what was previously know "unreliable"?  Or was it just a step by step process?
If you want to judge "reliability" I think you would have to break science into a couple of parts and look at them individually.
There are things that science has brought that impacts our lives 24 hours a day. We take for granted when we flip the light switch the light is going to come on. 
Pretty reliable.
Then there are the things that science is working on based off of what we know. As we know more we go in that direction. 
How would you assign reliability to what we know at a certain point in time?


> What if there are physical things which can never be found through this method or through any means that we will ever be capable of?


Then we will die not knowing what we didn't know.
And how would you find out if something can be found out or not?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not really a centrally located brain but it is spread through out there structure. Plants possess a sensory vocabulary far wider than our perception of them as static. They know when it's cold or hot. They know when it's night & day. They can smell their own fruits’ ripeness.
> In many ways it's more cruel to eat plants than animals. Animals can run from you but plants can't. You are literally eating a helpless being vs a smarter more complex animal capable of running & hiding.
> 
> I believe in God. I took science in school. Therefore I know God used science. Science could possibly dictate God used randomness. It doesn't dictate he picked numbers from a hat. It could dictate he used science and free will to get the ball rolling and seeing how his creation evolved.
> ...



I disagree. A plant can respond to its environment, but that does not indicated brain power or intelligence on any level. 

Single celled organisms can react to their environment, too. I wouldn't consider them to have a brain, since a brain is a collection of specialized cells, even though they present certain aspects that suggest an intelligence of some sort. 

But that gets into the question of where the mind lay in the brain, and we still don't understand how a bundle of neurons, plus electricity, plus certain chemicals equals a mind. 

My disagreement with your assertion that plants have mental capacity is merely naked skepticism since I haven't seen any evidence, other than anecdotal reactions to external stimuli, that would even suggest it. I'm not opposed to the idea, since I do recognize plants as living things, I just lump plants in as multicellular forms of lesser life. I could be wrong, though, and I'd be curious to see evidence from the opposing viewpoint. 

I don't see a complete path from you being a believer, to taking science, to knowing that God used science. There's a few steps missing there. 

It's hard to say anything for certain if you can't follow the chain of custody. There's a veil between us and God and, even if there weren't, it would be unlikely that we can truly relate to him in any meaningful way even if we could see him directly. The point being, though, is that since we can't follow a direct line from science to God yet, there's no way to know, either way, whether he did or did not use science. Now, I do believe that his will is dictated through the attributes that science has discovered, like gravitation or energy/matter conversion, but that also hinges on him existing at all, and there's no way to say that, either. 

Like I've said before, I've seen the same evidence in support of the God of Christianity as I've seen in support of Shiva, and Zeus, and a thousand other nameless gods who have fallen by the wayside. Further, I've seen that Christianity is the next "logical" step in the evolving nature of religion itself (which can exist without a deity since religion is a construct of man) whereby previous rites and rituals have been repurposed to win converts in the early days of the religion. 

Like the winter solstice holiday for Jupiter being the direct parent for Christmas, for one example. 

Perhaps if Christianity were the first religion, or the only religion, then I could weight it a little more towards the truth side of the scale, even though I would still want evidence, but that's not the case.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 3, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In all seriousness, and as an honest question, what is the scientific part of God?



God created everything, everything scientists need to discover/develop things with. No scientist ever created something out of nothing, they may have discovered it by using things already created, they may have developed it, but none have pulled anything out of nothing and created anything. Scientists are tools of God whether they/we believe it or not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 3, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> God created everything, everything scientists need to discover/develop things with. No scientist ever created something out of nothing, they may have discovered it by using things already created, they may have developed it, but none have pulled anything out of nothing and created anything. Scientists are tools of God whether they/we believe it or not.


Nice to see you posting again.
Same old tired, factless, proofless assertions though unfortunately.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Sep 4, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> God created everything, everything scientists need to discover/develop things with. No scientist ever created something out of nothing, they may have discovered it by using things already created, they may have developed it, but none have pulled anything out of nothing and created anything. Scientists are tools of God whether they/we believe it or not.



So, are you saying that creating "something out of nothing" is not possible?


----------



## Israel (Sep 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I disagree. A plant can respond to its environment, but that does not indicated brain power or intelligence on any level.
> 
> Single celled organisms can react to their environment, too. I wouldn't consider them to have a brain, since a brain is a collection of specialized cells, even though they present certain aspects that suggest an intelligence of some sort.
> 
> ...


Can you conceive of, or concede, a "christian" mind as unconcerned with christmas as with birthdays, halloween, solstices and new moons?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What, if anything, exists beyond and before our universe?  I think that is not knowable.



So why try?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 5, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> So why try?




Better yet, why take a weird book's word for it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 5, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> One other problem is when scientist attempt to extend the scope of science to answer philosophical questions.  It simply cannot do that, but many none the less accept that it can.


I agree with that.

It can, however, take the need for a philosophical answer out of the equation, with evidence... which  still makes you right. It just means the question is no longer necessarily philosophical.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 5, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Better yet, why take a weird book's word for it?



If you've conceded that it's UNKNOWABLE... then it's futile to try to figure it out! 

But if you think you can come close, or get closer than you are to knowing, then, I agree, why try to take the book that millions have attempted to find THE TRUTH in, and find it yourself. It's not in there to be found.. If it was, no one would be denying it.


----------



## Israel (Sep 6, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> If you've conceded that it's UNKNOWABLE... then it's futile to try to figure it out!
> 
> But if you think you can come close, or get closer than you are to knowing, then, I agree, why try to take the book that millions have attempted to find THE TRUTH in, and find it yourself. It's not in there to be found.. If it was, no one would be denying it.


Truth is not figured out. Who could trust mere "figures" as true?
Truth is hard, like a stone, it must be experienced.
Maybe you can read other books, too? Maybe even John Gardner's Grendel from which these "Spark Notes" are quoted.

That night, filled with excitement, lust, joy, and fear, Grendel raids the meadhall. He bursts through the heavy front door to discover all the men asleep. Madly prankish, he ties a tablecloth around his neck like a napkin and proceeds to eat one sleeping man. Grendel grabs another man by the wrist, only to discover that it is Beowulf, who has been silently watching him in order to see how he operates. With a stare as intense as his grip, Beowulf twists Grendel’s arm around in the socket, causing him pain unlike any he has ever felt. Grendel has a surreal, fantastic vision of the meadhall coming to life, and he sees a pair of wings sprouting from Beowulf’s back. Reminding himself that Beowulf is only a man, Grendel tries to regain his senses and plan a logical attack. But just then Grendel slips on a puddle of blood, and the accident allows Beowulf to take the upper hand.

Beowulf starts whispering madly in Grendel’s ear. Though Grendel tries to avoid listening, he is helpless. Beowulf begins by quoting the dragon’s description of the world as a meaningless swirl of dust. Laughing and spitting flames, Beowulf speaks of an approaching period of regeneration in the world. Grendel refuses to be taken in by Beowulf’s words, which remind him of all the talk he has already heard. Slipping in and out of his visions, Grendel whimpers and bawls for his mother. He claims that Beowulf has gained the upper hand merely by taking advantage of an accident: if Grendel had not slipped on the blood, he would be winning. Beowulf hurls Grendel against a table and then a wall, demanding that Grendel observe the hardness of the wall. He continues to smash Grendel against the walls, breaking his forehead open. Then Beowulf demands that Grendel “sing of walls.” After some resistance, Grendel sings a short verse about man’s walls crumbling with the passage of time, leaving nothing but the shining memory of the town.

Grendel continues to insist that Beowulf is insane, and that his victory is only an accident and no proof of the truth of his words. Grendel is amazed when Beowulf manages to rip his arm off at the shoulder. Suddenly realizing that he will die, Grendel stumbles out of the hall and into the darkness of the night. The outlines of everything around him appear remarkably distinct. Grendel calls for his mother one last time. He finds himself standing at the edge of the same cliff where he stood in Chapter 1, staring down into its bottomless depths. Something inside Grendel moves him to tumble down into the abyss voluntarily. His sight clears for a moment, and no longer in pain, he notices that his old enemies, the animals, have gathered around him to watch him die. Overcome by both terror and joy, Grendel whispers to them, “Poor Grendel’s had an accident. . . . So may you all.”


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 6, 2014)

"Science" is not 100 percent reliable, but you really have to define "science."  The scientific _method_ is the best thing going so far. Thus employing this method reveals the truth, not how we want things to be. So something thought to be true for centuries may turn out to to be false, if the testing criteria improves. 

Religion is based on what somebody says is true, or what a book they wrote says is true. The scientific method (when properly employed) is based on what reality shows us, warts and all, whether we agree or not. 

Scientific revelations can occur 24/7 generally through focused hard work and persistence, and can be repeated, while miracles cannot and are open to interpretation based on faith and cannot be repeated or tested.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> What if there are physical things which can never be found through this method or through any means that we will ever be capable of? If they exist, do these things not matter?
> 
> I'm sorry to ask so many "what if" questions (I think them to be deplorable most of the time), but this seems to be a group of thinkers.



Like what? Fairies and leprechauns?


----------



## Israel (Sep 21, 2014)

The results of patience may be experienced, though patience itself may remain invisible.
Or, one can hurry up and do something, and discover those results, too.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2014)

Our understanding of reality is what changes and science is the most reliable method we have of going down that path of discovery, however messy and cumbersome it may be. Do you know of a better method of distinguishing fact from fiction? If you are seriously ill would you go to a doctor or would you scatter some chicken bones on the ground and say a prayer? I can't take credit for it but I once heard someone say if we are going over a cliff I'll take a parachute and you can take your bible and I'll see you at the bottom.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Our understanding of reality is what changes and science is the most reliable method we have of going down that path of discovery, however messy and cumbersome it may be. Do you know of a better method of distinguishing fact from fiction? If you are seriously ill would you go to a doctor or would you scatter some chicken bones on the ground and say a prayer? I can't take credit for it but I once heard someone say if we are going over a cliff I'll take a parachute and you can take your bible and I'll see you at the bottom.



Got a little bored did yah  

My final thoughts about science on this thread: It cannot, nor will it ever be in a position to answer the questions which haunt and oppress us. It is good for temporal things, but human life is a vapor whether you live to be 20 or 120; it vanishes with haste: that fact can make even some faithful weak in the knees. Science is the study of this life and this universe, no other. If this life is simply an infinitesimal piece of a much, much larger picture, how important is this study, really? What shall it profit an man if he gain the whole world yet loose his soul? The answer? Nothing.

Science...important? Yes, but no more than any other passing fancy. It should take no more importance over spiritual things than buying a new fishing rod would take precedence over a mortgage payment. 

As for your childish comparison that charges God foolishly, I don't have a response I think would be received well; so, I'll heed what my mom taught me and say nothing else about that matter.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Got a little bored did yah
> 
> My final thoughts about science on this thread: It cannot, nor will it ever be in a position to answer the questions which haunt and oppress us. It is good for temporal things, but human life is a vapor whether you live to be 20 or 120; it vanishes with haste: that fact can make even some faithful weak in the knees. Science is the study of this life and this universe, no other. If this life is simply an infinitesimal piece of a much, much larger picture, how important is this study, really? What shall it profit an man if he gain the whole world yet loose his soul? The answer? Nothing.
> 
> ...


You can certainly place your faith as the most important thing in your life but this -


> Science...important? Yes, but no more than any other passing fancy.


Is kind of over top don't you think?
Your kid is terribly sick - would you consider a doctor more important than the latest passing fancy?
Or a parent has a heart attack - going to deny them heart surgery because its a passing fancy? 
We can come up with lots and lots of examples where you would choose science over a passing fancy.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Your kid is terribly sick - would you consider a doctor more important than the latest passing fancy?
> Or a parent has a heart attack - going to deny them heart surgery because its a passing fancy?
> We can come up with lots and lots of examples where you would choose science over a passing fancy.



I can't answer for EG, but, when I was coaching little league, and a kid got hit by a ball, I would jokingly say "that's why God made gloves."

My point is, to a Christian, science is an understanding of creation......God makes the man and the cow.  Man uses the cow to make a glove.  God makes the man and the "cure."  Man uses the "cure" to prevent/treat illness.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You can certainly place your faith as the most important thing in your life but this -
> 
> Is kind of over top don't you think?
> Your kid is terribly sick - would you consider a doctor more important than the latest passing fancy?
> ...



I'm trying not to bring emotion into this; that being said, I agree, I phrased it poorly; but my point remains the same. The way I see things, spiritual understanding is far more important than trying to figure out if we live in a "landscape." If you die from a heart attack at the age of forty because you ate horrible food for the majority of your life, than so be it; what would be the difference in living to be 100 in the face of eternity? None.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I can't answer for EG, but, when I was coaching little league, and a kid got hit by a ball, I would jokingly say "that's why God made gloves."
> 
> My point is, to a Christian, science is an understanding of creation......God makes the man and the cow.  Man uses the cow to make a glove.  God makes the man and the "cure."  Man uses the "cure" to prevent/treat illness.



I like what people say when they're just joking; if you think about it, what they say is usually much, much deeper than it may at first appear.

I like your last point. Science can show us interesting things, it can give us many tools; its progression is real and powerful, but, it is not the source of truth; nor can truth be experienced in this way.


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You can certainly place your faith as the most important thing in your life but this -
> 
> Is kind of over top don't you think?
> Your kid is terribly sick - would you consider a doctor more important than the latest passing fancy?
> ...


Seems regardless of how much we couch our responses in either the most cerebral of musings or the most fundamentals of faith...we end up asking "But what do you do/what would you do?"

How much is unseen in all our professed motives and inclinations. The most devout atheist may discover he has always been underpinned by faith, the most religious of us, may have little but disobedience revealed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm trying not to bring emotion into this; that being said, I agree, I phrased it poorly; but my point remains the same. The way I see things, spiritual understanding is far more important than trying to figure out if we live in a "landscape." If you die from a heart attack at the age of forty because you ate horrible food for the majority of your life, than so be it; what would be the difference in living to be 100 in the face of eternity? None.





> The way I see things, spiritual understanding is far more important than trying to figure out if we live in a "landscape."


Sure. All of that is way different than comparing science to a passing fancy.


> If you die from a heart attack at the age of forty because you ate horrible food for the majority of your life, than so be it;


Im guessing if your over eating 40 year old loved one is having a heart attack in front of you, "so be it" will change to "call 911" in short order.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure. All of that is way different than comparing science to a passing fancy..



I couldn't think of words to elevate spiritual things far enough above science, but I could think of phrases to demote science. Again, poor wording, but, none-the-less true (IMO).



WaltL1 said:


> Im guessing if your over eating 40 year old loved one is having a heart attack in front of you, "so be it" will change to "call 911" in short order.



 Of course. I repeat what I said in my previous post. I'm trying to make a conscious effort to make my posts more succinct, at the cost of non-ambiguity. 
Again, a very high level, dispassionate argument I'm trying to make.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Got a little bored did yah
> 
> My final thoughts about science on this thread: It cannot, nor will it ever be in a position to answer the questions which haunt and oppress us. It is good for temporal things, but human life is a vapor whether you live to be 20 or 120; it vanishes with haste: that fact can make even some faithful weak in the knees. Science is the study of this life and this universe, no other. If this life is simply an infinitesimal piece of a much, much larger picture, how important is this study, really? What shall it profit an man if he gain the whole world yet loose his soul? The answer? Nothing.
> 
> ...



Those are some interesting what ifs but you're not the only one to play that game. What if you are reincarnated? What if you get beamed after death to some other planet by aliens? What if any of the other various myths men have dreamed up are true? Fun to consider I suppose but in the end it is just pure imagination and considering we are a species acutely aware that we will one day die I dare say a lot of wish thinking. What if when you die you simply cease to exist and return to the state of nonexistence from which you sprang? Well in that case worrying about an after life is a complete waste of very precious time. Time that could be spent appreciating the amazing gift and opportunity to experience an awe inspiring universe. When I look up at the night sky and consider the vast distances to the stars and the incredible things that are out there and all that we have so far learned and yet so much more to discover I feel so fortunate to not only be alive but alive at this particular point in time. It's much more than a passing fancy to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 18, 2014)

As a Christian I do understand the importance of spiritual things and of life beyond my physical death.
To me that in no way belittles science to something less than God. To me science is God's work. It's his plan. He made me a human and he expects me to guard and guide my life, my fellow man, the animals, and the Earth. He expects me to be the caretaker of his planet and my body. 
He gave me/us the knowledge of science to perform this task. He created the universe and life using science. Everything physical contains science by God's choice, not mine. 
Science is of the utmost importance as long as I'm a physical being. I have a spiritual side but I still have a physical side too. God gave my physical side human scientific systems to operate. I'm pretty sure he did this for a reason and not a passing fancy.
God created everything using science as his creation.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Dec 18, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think what I can "rely" on about science is that it will continually try to correct itself. At one time science said you bleed a person out to cure the common cold. I appreciate they didn't leave it at that.
> Science has solved/invented lots of things.
> Science is also working on lots of things and basically we get "updated" as they continue working.
> And as Griz said something cant be unknowable until you try to know it. What is unknowable today might be solved tomorrow by a discovery of something else.



Science is more than collected knowledge/techniques/etc.
It's the process of science (The Scientific Method) with the testing and measuring and controls and all those other nerdy things (without bringing your own agenda to the table) that so far is the best way to keep moving forward
and advancing and learning. 

Of course there is always something just out of reach.
That's kind of where god is in a way. 

Back a long time ago people thought fire came from god. Then they figured out how to make it. God must be further than that. So no matter what you discover or learn and realize it's natural rather than supernatural, god must be one step ahead of that next new thing we can't explain.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 18, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Science is more than collected knowledge/techniques/etc.
> It's the process of science (The Scientific Method) with the testing and measuring and controls and all those other nerdy things (without bringing your own agenda to the table) that so far is the best way to keep moving forward
> and advancing and learning.
> 
> ...



We discussed on page two that the scientific method is the process of discovering and we are constantly discovering new things, ways, and methods.
Science itself has always been here and as you mentioned as in the case of fire, discovered scientifically. 
Man didn't invent the makeup of atoms and molecules, he only discovered them. God, if one believes, or some other beginning if you don't believe, invented or started science.
Man only discovers it. 
Sometimes these discoveries aren't accepted by Christians as in the case of evolution, round earth, or the earth revolving around the sun. I used Galileo being labeled a heretic as an example. Now he isn't considered one.
For some reason people become "enlightened." I like to think it is the work of God revealing himself. God reveals little by little & bit by bit. Maybe in the fullness of time everything will be revealed.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Dec 18, 2014)

Hmmm.......but what if God "revealing himself" contradicts
what were supposed truths in earlier generations?
For example creation/evolution - has god revealed himself now that we can understand these things, and the age of the earth, how the universe works, etc? The Bible tells a completely different explanation. I'm not buying the "people wouldn't have understood anything more complex" angle so that's why a very non-scientific approach was necessary. 
Humans were as smart 30,000 years ago as they are now and in some ways smarter.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 19, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> god must be one step ahead of that next new thing we can't explain.



That pretty much says it all. If you can't explain it, God...

Behold, one of the reasons for religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 19, 2014)

660griz said:


> That pretty much says it all. If you can't explain it, God...
> 
> Behold, one of the reasons for religion.


That's some serious job security


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 24, 2015)

Science is a language we use to describe things. It offers no truth, only descriptions. Translations occur through the scientific method. If practiced according to the scientific method, it is 100% reliable, but you have to understand that it is only producing descriptions. We can act on those descriptions, and sometimes it works out that we get the expected results. Sometimes we don't.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Science is a language we use to describe things. It offers no truth, only descriptions. Translations occur through the scientific method. If practiced according to the scientific method, it is 100% reliable, but you have to understand that it is only producing descriptions. We can act on those descriptions, and sometimes it works out that we get the expected results. Sometimes we don't.




Correctly interpreting divine messages is a superior way to inform actions.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Correctly interpreting divine messages is a superior way to inform actions.



Well said!


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Well said!



You have fun with those chicken bones and tea leaves now, ya hear.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You have fun with those chicken bones and tea leaves now, ya hear.



Ambush, the op asked for opinions on the reliability of science. I responded to such. I didn't say anything about religion. I am unsure of the source or intent of your comments. They look like cheap shots (in the dark). Thank you for your standard method of participation.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Ambush, the op asked for opinions on the reliability of science. I responded to such. I didn't say anything about religion. I am unsure of the source or intent of your comments. They look like cheap shots (in the dark). Thank you for your standard method of participation.



I didn't say anything about religion either.  I stated sarcastically that divining the spirit world is a better way than scientific inquiry to inform action to which you whole heartedly agreed.  I then offered you support towards that end.

It seems that you don't consider reading tea leaves or casting animal bones a valid method of discerning the divine.  I would like to know why?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I didn't say anything about religion either.  I stated sarcastically that divining the spirit world is a better way than scientific inquiry to inform action to which you whole heartedly agreed.  I then offered you support towards that end.
> 
> It seems that you don't consider reading tea leaves or casting animal bones a valid method of discerning the divine.  I would like to know why?



Science and sarcasm have a common fault. If they are not interpreted correctly, they don't really work. You didn't get my sarcasm either.

Completely off topic, I don't know if reading tea leaves and casting animal bones is a valid method. I don't know how to do it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Science and sarcasm have a common fault. If they are not interpreted correctly, they don't really work. You didn't get my sarcasm either.
> 
> Completely off topic, I don't know if reading tea leaves and casting animal bones is a valid method. I don't know how to do it.



Do you think they're as reliable as scientifically gathered information to inform action?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think they're as reliable as scientifically gathered information to inform action?



Yes, but I don't think science is all that reliable to inform action. Science is reliable to its own process. That is the nature of languages. Years ago, science said to feed your children radium laced cookies because of the healing properties of radium.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, but I don't think science is all that reliable to inform action. Science is reliable to its own process. That is the nature of languages. Years ago, science said to feed your children radium laced cookies because of the healing properties of radium.


This is key and a problem for "Christian" scientist as well. They incorporate the same flawed methods.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2015)

The sense some scientists make tend to have me relying on them. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 24, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, but I don't think science is all that reliable to inform action. Science is reliable to its own process. That is the nature of languages. Years ago, science said to feed your children radium laced cookies because of the healing properties of radium.


What is your definition of "inform action"?
On the surface I would immediately say something like -
science says you can tap on some keys and people from all different locations could read what you typed so you just took that action and lo and behold Im reading it.
That seems too obvious so that's why I'm asking exactly what you mean by "inform action".


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What is your definition of "inform action"?
> On the surface I would immediately say something like -
> science says you can tap on some keys and people from all different locations could read what you typed so you just took that action and lo and behold Im reading it.
> That seems too obvious so that's why I'm asking exactly what you mean by "inform action".



Walt, you have described cause and effect, science is slightly more complicated. It involves a hypothesis, an experiment, a control group, repetition, adjustment, and in the end, support, or lack thereof of the hypothesis. I think that "inform action" implies that because of what science, or the chicken bones say, I will do "this..." In many instances science does lead us down the correct path, but not always, and if it is done incorrectly, it will almost always lead us astray.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> This is key and a problem for "Christian" scientist as well. They incorporate the same flawed methods.



Science doesn't have flawed methods. Humans screw it up.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Science doesn't have flawed methods. Humans screw it up.



Which is why you should pray about how to interpret the data.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 25, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Walt, you have described cause and effect, science is slightly more complicated. It involves a hypothesis, an experiment, a control group, repetition, adjustment, and in the end, support, or lack thereof of the hypothesis. I think that "inform action" implies that because of what science, or the chicken bones say, I will do "this..." In many instances science does lead us down the correct path, but not always, and if it is done incorrectly, it will almost always lead us astray.


Of course I agree with your process of science. Not sure I agree that I ONLY described cause and effect. Between the cause -tapping on keys, and the effect - it being read, there is quite a bit of science.


> and if it is done incorrectly, it will almost always lead us astray


I think, in general, you just described darn near everything including religion/belief in God.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course I agree with your process of science. Not sure I agree that I ONLY described cause and effect. Between the cause -tapping on keys, and the effect - it being read, there is quite a bit of science.
> 
> I think, in general, you just described darn near everything including religion/belief in God.



Science contributed to the technology that made the key tapping and delivery possible, but the act of doing it, and the technology functioning as designed is not science. I know I am splitting hairs, but I feel it is an important point, because most people confuse the two.

Yes, that description works on everything from screwdrivers to brain surgery. Very general, but very true. Of course there are some exceptions, champagne was invented by doing it wrong, so was white Zinfandel.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Which is why you should pray about how to interpret the data.



Well Ambush, if you live near some of the sites I work on, you might also want to pray that I am interpreting the data correctly.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2015)

ted_BSR said:


> Well Ambush, if you live near some of the sites I work on, you might also want to pray that I am interpreting the data correctly.




...pass.


----------

