The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Is science based in fact or belief? by subbywan 2007-01-22 16:28:58
I think most of us would automatically reply with "fact", but i think we'd also agree that science is something we can prove using the scientific method.

Therein lies the problem though.

One of the basic principles of the scientific method is that of falsifiability. If we cannot falsify the results, we cannot say it has been proven with the scientific method.

Science believed in Newton for years before those ideas were swept away by Einsteins theory of relativity, but it is only recently we were able to falsify his predictions. Similarly, we cannot currently falsify much of todays cutting edge science, such as most of quantum phyics, or theories like string theory. We simply do not yet have the technology.

It would therefore seem that much of science is not in fact based on scientific fact or proof, but in scientific belief

That said, how much more different is religious belief different? How possible is it that the reason we cannot prove the existence of God/gods is merely because our technology has not yet advanced to that point?
[ Reply ]
  Science is based on belief supported by fact. by hadji2007-01-22 16:35:24
    but could it be the reason it's faith-based by subbywan2007-01-22 16:36:58
      That's a pointless statement though. by hadji2007-01-22 16:39:05
        But per the scientific method, by subbywan2007-01-22 16:47:26
          Sounds like a semantic problem. by vetitice2007-01-22 16:55:09
            It may very well be. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:01:28
              Who's this 'we', kemo sabe? by vetitice2007-01-22 17:13:50
                But very large portions of science have by subbywan2007-01-22 17:22:55
                  OK, I think I see where you're taking this. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:38:50
                    ARGH!! you did it!! :P by subbywan2007-01-22 17:40:59
                      That depends on the scope of the box. by hadji2007-01-22 17:44:52
                        There's always a bigger box. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:51:03
                        Thus my point by subbywan2007-01-22 17:55:25
                          But the point is that you never CAN prove it. by hadji2007-01-22 18:21:28
                            We don't KNOW we cannot prove it. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:26:02
                              The fact that the possibility exists means we by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:27:56
                                True, but if we're wrong, by subbywan2007-01-22 18:29:13
                                No, we can't prove his non-existence doing that by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:32:33
                                Then we may prove his existence by subbywan2007-01-22 18:49:47
                                We might by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:52:08
                                I'm interested in God. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:54:52
                                Fair enough. by Arachnid2007-01-22 19:05:37
                                Yes, but when I spawn by subbywan2007-01-22 19:06:23
                      Talk to Goedel. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:46:18
                        Nothing to be sorry about. That's the point of the by subbywan2007-01-22 17:56:33
                          What godel proved is that there are some things by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:00:45
                            Proved? by subbywan2007-01-22 18:02:30
                              Not exactly. by vetitice2007-01-22 18:10:48
                                That would indicate a limited model. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:14:02
                                The very definition of 'universe' is that it's by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:18:20
                                That merely shows *we* were wrong by subbywan2007-01-22 18:24:28
                                Then once again you're arguing about nothing more by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:26:38
                                We already covered that up here: by subbywan2007-01-22 18:31:14
                                It's still a matter of semantics by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:35:30
                                only everything we know. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:52:04
                              No, he's proved it. It is in no way an assumption. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:11:49
                                By that article itself, it lists there are limits by subbywan2007-01-22 18:20:32
                                Certainly by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:24:57
                                I agree. The universe might be one by subbywan2007-01-22 18:28:18
                                We don't need to prove it is one. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:38:16
                                How much of what we have proved do we by subbywan2007-01-22 18:53:58
      Can't ever get there. by vetitice2007-01-22 16:41:07
        Why can't we ever get there? by subbywan2007-01-22 16:44:37
          Because you can always say by vetitice2007-01-22 16:50:05
            Not yet, I agree by subbywan2007-01-22 16:53:07
              Not ever. by vetitice2007-01-22 16:59:59
                That's the catch. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:04:23
                  But we know exactly how we'd go about that. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:06:15
                    Only because we've *done* it. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:10:03
                      We haven't landed probes on jupiter's moons by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:16:25
                        Yes. But we don't know how to get them back by subbywan2007-01-22 17:29:46
                          Yes we do by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:36:46
                            Are we omnipotent? by subbywan2007-01-22 17:53:51
                              No, we're not. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:57:05
                                Hence my point. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:58:36
                                So you can disprove small gods. Woohoo. by vetitice2007-01-22 18:04:10
                                How do we know Gods go beyond science? by subbywan2007-01-22 18:08:43
                                And now you're not talking about proving the by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:15:01
                                Who says they WEREN'T what we call God? by subbywan2007-01-22 18:34:33
                                Definitions again. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:41:25
                                Neither. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:45:54
                                Glad I could help. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:49:47
                                Go right ahead :) by subbywan2007-01-22 18:55:43
                                You can NEVER prove they don't! by vetitice2007-01-22 18:18:46
                                That's because you think I'm trying to actively by subbywan2007-01-22 18:38:32
                                No, it's useless to go searching... by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:43:02
                                The whole tangent thing again. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:48:44
                                Like I said, if it's not omnipotent, it's not god. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:04:22
                                Why not? by subbywan2007-01-22 18:10:57
                                Then we have a disagreement in terminology by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:16:35
                                That's fair enough. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:42:13
                  Nope. The logic is ALWAYS one step ahead. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:20:03
                    I agree with you on the priest by subbywan2007-01-22 17:32:57
                      You can't prove a negative. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:39:20
                        But we don't KNOW God is a negative yet by subbywan2007-01-22 17:57:20
                          You misunderstand. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:59:29
                            Currently. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:03:24
                              How can technology ever help if God can by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:11:25
                                Assumption. by subbywan2007-01-22 18:57:30
          Because the best we can say is that it fits the by Arachnid2007-01-22 16:58:45
      Faith is by Havoc2007-01-22 16:44:56
        Now I feel even worse. It was nearly a year ago. by Havoc2007-01-22 16:50:39
        I don't think that means we should *blindly* by subbywan2007-01-22 16:52:02
          That's how I know I don't have faith. by Havoc2007-01-22 17:01:59
  I think the intent is different... by MrTrick2007-01-22 16:37:47
    I disagree there by subbywan2007-01-22 16:41:35
      Of course. by MrTrick2007-01-22 16:49:35
      If you start questioning religion by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:00:32
        By that measure though, by subbywan2007-01-22 17:07:57
          What are you seeking to prove? by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:12:12
            Do we? by subbywan2007-01-22 17:18:45
              How do we set up an objective experiment to prove by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:19:49
                You can test for dihydrogen oxide by subbywan2007-01-22 17:35:30
                  That's not 'proving water', that's showing that by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:42:34
        Questioniong religion != questioning God by koosvannermerwe2007-01-23 00:19:47
  I think the big difference is by vetitice2007-01-22 16:38:28
  False Dichotomy. by Arachnid2007-01-22 16:54:39
    What else would you call it? by subbywan2007-01-22 17:10:53
      Reasoning. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:18:49
        Incorrect. by subbywan2007-01-22 17:38:48
          That's exactly what I said. by Arachnid2007-01-22 17:45:31
            From a religious view, that only demonstrates by subbywan2007-01-22 18:00:45
              What? by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:02:01
                No, but it does lead you off in new and interestin by subbywan2007-01-22 18:07:38
                  So? (n/t) by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:12:57
                    I like tangents. (n/t) by subbywan2007-01-22 18:58:01
                      Mmm. They're so juicy and delic... oh, tangents. ( (n/t) by Arachnid2007-01-22 19:04:30
  Belief. Scientists don't require proof. by toysbfun2007-01-22 17:22:59
  Repeatability. by RetiQlum22007-01-22 17:25:14
    Laws aren't laws. They're theoies. by vetitice2007-01-22 17:29:17
      Scientific "laws". by run.dll2007-01-22 17:37:58
        Exactly! by vetitice2007-01-22 17:42:24
  Einstein by Tcabot2007-01-22 18:00:11
    religion without science is blind. by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:03:19
      I have issues with Dawkins. by vetitice2007-01-22 18:24:57
        What he says is slightly different by Arachnid2007-01-22 18:29:28
          From a Pantheistic standpoint... by Illiad2007-01-22 22:48:15
  Not falsifiability. Testability. by Phoon2007-01-22 18:22:58
    Exactly by admeralthrawn2007-01-22 18:26:32
      That depends on how well your experiment is by Phoon2007-01-22 18:53:21
    All the definitions I've seen for defining by subbywan2007-01-22 19:02:22
      So, what you're saying is... by Phoon2007-01-22 22:09:26
        No, that's not what I'm saying at all by subbywan2007-01-23 12:30:44
  Right, i'm off home, which means by subbywan2007-01-22 19:12:04

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)