Science is limited

[livingwordlabels]

Science, by definition, can only accept something which can be proven or tested in some way. It is therefore limited to making conclusions about physical things.
I'm not saying this limitation undermines science as a valid and extremely useful source of knowledge. However, what does undermine its reliability is when people use it to make assumptions and conclusions without acknowledging this limitation.

For example, when people try to use their scientific way of thinking to decide whether God exists or not. God is spiritual, not physical - a concept completely alien to science.

Also when people use only what they can observe to explain how mankind was created. This inevitably fails, as they have to limit life to something physical and we get the absurd idea of life evolving out of matter. The Bible offers us a more plausible explanation - that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. If we believe the Bible, we can see that humans are spiritual as well as physical.

My conclusion? If you want to understand God, how we were made, our purpose for living, our relationship with God and even our future, then you need something more than science.

[Goat]

I think science will survive Mr. Goose having issues with it.

I don't have an issue with science. I love science. Science is cool. I have issues with "science" that attempts to prove things via invalid reasoning. I take it you don't have an issue with that?

The problem is, you have not shown that it is using 'invalid reasoning'. It just is coming to conclusions YOU don't like... so you claim it's invalid.

Science does not come to a conclusion there is not God. What it DOES show is that many of the things claimed by Theists to need God don't need God at all, and that threatens them.

[instantc]

No, I don't have an issue with it.

Clearly this is where you and I differ. You don't have an issue with "science" that attempts to prove things true via invalid reasoning whereas I do have an issue with that.

I think we're done here.

But does science attempt to prove things, or does it attempt to know things for a level of certainty that has turned out to be useful for us?

Many people would of course assert that such things as evolution are proven, while they are in fact merely supported by overwhelming evidence.

[Goose]

The problem is, you have not shown that it is using 'invalid reasoning'. It just is coming to conclusions YOU don't like... so you claim it's invalid.

I've shown here that the scientific method employs fallacious reasoning when if attempts to prove something.

[Goose]

But does science attempt to prove things, or does it attempt to know things for a level of certainty that has turned out to be useful for us?

A falsehood can be useful to us. Being useful to us and being proven true are different matters.

Many people would of course assert that such things as evolution are proven, while they are in fact merely supported by overwhelming evidence.

I've already stated I don't have an issue with anyone that argues the theory of Evolution is supported.

[instantc]

I think science will survive Mr. Goose having issues with it.

I don't have an issue with science. I love science. Science is cool. I have issues with "science" that attempts to prove things via invalid reasoning. I take it you don't have an issue with that?

The problem is, you have not shown that it is using 'invalid reasoning'. It just is coming to conclusions YOU don't like... so you claim it's invalid.

But, he did show that the scientific method involves a fallacy, insofar as it claims to actually prove something, which I don't think good science does. Could you at least tell us what your objection to his argument is, instead of just preaching your apriori commitment to disregard logical arguments?

[instantc]

Many people would of course assert that such things as evolution are proven, while they are in fact merely supported by overwhelming evidence.

I've already stated I don't have an issue with anyone that argues the theory of Evolution is supported.

I don't think any prominent scientist would claim anything more, so there's no grounds for claiming that science in fact relies on a fallacy.

[Goose]

I don't think any prominent scientist would claim anything more, so there's no grounds for claiming that science in fact relies on a fallacy.

I'm not arguing science relies on a fallacy.

[instantc]

I don't think any prominent scientist would claim anything more, so there's no grounds for claiming that science in fact relies on a fallacy.

I'm not arguing science relies on a fallacy.

My misunderstanding then.

[Goat]

The problem is, you have not shown that it is using 'invalid reasoning'. It just is coming to conclusions YOU don't like... so you claim it's invalid.

I've shown here that the scientific method employs fallacious reasoning when if attempts to prove something.

No, you have shown that you complain about it. However, science works, and your complaints do not.

You have convinced yourself.. you have not convinced anybody else.

[bluethread]

Howie, it's conjecture. There are way too many variables that can not be observed and/or isolated for either of these to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone fact.

On the contrary, a lot of it has been known for over 50 years. The progression of global warming, using the level's of CO2 predicted in the atmosphere, is extremely close to actual observations.. the predictions of the 1970's and the current temperature of the world is damn close.

Oh, like the following:

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster – Mercer (1978) “If the global consumption of fossil fuels continues to grow at its present rate, atmospheric CO2 content will double in about 50 years. Climatic models suggest that the resultant greenhouse-warming effect will be greatly magnified in high latitudes. The computed temperature rise at lat 80° S could start rapid deglaciation of West Antarctica, leading to a 5 m rise in sea level.�

In response to this we see in Oct. 9, 2009 Nature, Hamish D. Pritchard

Ice loss as a result of accelerated flow, known as dynamic thinning, is so poorly understood that its potential contribution to sea level over the twenty-first century remains unpredictable

A Non-Equilibrium Model of Hemispheric Mean Surface Temperature – Bryson & Dittberner (1976) “By more completely accounting for those anthropogenic processes which produce both lower tropospheric aerosols and carbon dioxide, such as fossil fuel burning and agricultural burning, we calculate an expected slight decrease in surface temperature with an increase in CO2 content.�

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate – Rasool & Schneider (1971) “It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.�

Lately there have been papers that say that "the global cooling myth" was not being posited in the 1970's. That may be true among certain scientists, but the public argument by the environmental movement was global cooling. I was there and it was as clearly stated as the space program.

I am not arguing for global cooling. May point is that there are too many variables to establish a direct causal link and presume that natural factors will not compensate. Science is good at direct observation in a controlled environment. However, it is technology that is the acid test and the technology necessary to control climate does not exist. That has been the holy grail of weather men since before the tribal peoples thought dancing would cause it to rain.