|
Is science based in fact or belief? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:28:58 |
|
Science is based on belief supported by fact. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:35:24 |
|
but could it be the reason it's faith-based | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:36:58 |
|
That's a pointless statement though. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:39:05 |
|
But per the scientific method, | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:47:26 |
|
Sounds like a semantic problem. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:55:09 |
|
It may very well be. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:01:28 |
| Who's this 'we', kemo sabe? |
by vetitice |
2007-01-22 17:13:50 |
People who say science is 'provable' or contains Facts are as wrong as religions saying they have the Truth.
Science is falsifiable, which means you think up ways of proving yourself wrong. The closest you can come to being right is to say no-one YET has thought of why you're wrong.
On the other hand, when you've got millions of people who dream of being able to prove the big shots wrong and win their Nobel prize, the stuff that 'hasn't been proved wrong yet' gets pretty solid. At least until someone comes up with a way of looking at stuff no-one has yet seen.
Since religion deals with entities that theoretically can change the universe on a whim to fudge your experiments, you can never be proved wrong. Or right. So trying to 'prove' religion is meaningless. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
But very large portions of science have | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:22:55 |
|
OK, I think I see where you're taking this. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:38:50 |
|
ARGH!! you did it!! :P | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:40:59 |
|
That depends on the scope of the box. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 17:44:52 |
|
There's always a bigger box. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:51:03 |
|
Thus my point | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:55:25 |
|
But the point is that you never CAN prove it. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 18:21:28 |
|
We don't KNOW we cannot prove it. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:26:02 |
|
The fact that the possibility exists means we | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:27:56 |
|
True, but if we're wrong, | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:29:13 |
|
No, we can't prove his non-existence doing that | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:32:33 |
|
Then we may prove his existence | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:49:47 |
|
We might | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:52:08 |
|
I'm interested in God. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:54:52 |
|
Fair enough. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 19:05:37 |
|
Yes, but when I spawn | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 19:06:23 |
|
Talk to Goedel. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:46:18 |
|
Nothing to be sorry about. That's the point of the | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:56:33 |
|
What godel proved is that there are some things | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:00:45 |
|
Proved? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:02:30 |
|
Not exactly. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:10:48 |
|
That would indicate a limited model. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:14:02 |
|
The very definition of 'universe' is that it's | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:18:20 |
|
That merely shows *we* were wrong | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:24:28 |
|
Then once again you're arguing about nothing more | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:26:38 |
|
We already covered that up here: | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:31:14 |
|
It's still a matter of semantics | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:35:30 |
|
only everything we know. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:52:04 |
|
No, he's proved it. It is in no way an assumption. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:11:49 |
|
By that article itself, it lists there are limits | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:20:32 |
|
Certainly | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:24:57 |
|
I agree. The universe might be one | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:28:18 |
|
We don't need to prove it is one. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:38:16 |
|
How much of what we have proved do we | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:53:58 |
