Religion vs Science - Proof

[Willum]

Why is it that it requires tons and tons of evidence and even practical application to demonstrate a theory in science.
And theories are treated with contempt, as if our world didn't rely on gravity and electricity.

But religion has three books, no back-up and virtually everything is contested, not observed or shown to be false, yet it has such a strong following?

What can explain the idea overwhelming proof can not dismiss anecdotal or idealistic religion?

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 59 by BeHereNow]

Here are some things I gave been told, various times, covering decades, by self proclaimed advocates of Science. Some claimed to have PHDs in the Sciences.

My background is in science with 8 years at university and decades of teaching. The nonsense that followed your opening statement is the sort of rubbish perpetrated by fundamentalists and creationists who are essentially opposed to science. I have not heard anything like it in all my years and dismiss the claims with the contempt they deserve.

Is that a rebuttal to my "rubbish", and a response to my claims of Scientism being alive and well?

I am no fundamentalist, no creationist.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 59 by BeHereNow]

Also, in general, across decades and many boards, the actual scientists do not speak up against the above claims.

I can also say that in a full career as an experimental scientist (Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 1985, so 33 years in the field) I have never, even once, heard any of my colleagues claim that science is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, or that only via the scientific method is any knowledge possible, or any of the other claims you are making. These ideas are certainly not espoused by the huge majority of scientists in the world today.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 59 by BeHereNow]

Also, in general, across decades and many boards, the actual scientists do not speak up against the above claims.

I can also say that in a full career as an experimental scientist (Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry in 1985, so 33 years in the field) I have never, even once, heard any of my colleagues claim that science is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, or that only via the scientific method is any knowledge possible, or any of the other claims you are making. These ideas are certainly not espoused by the huge majority of scientists in the world today.

I would say, virtually none, only one that I have encountered, on most of these claims.
Now the wannabes, different story there. I have heard all of those things, many times from them. Scientists were lurking, said nothing. Virtually every time.

The wannabes are very vocal, receive much support and attaboys from the scientists in general, even if not on these particular claims. No corrections when making the false claims.

So the wannbabes espouse scientism, as I presented. Do you doubt that? It would be easy for me to dermonstrate, if you are in doubt.
Scientists, by their obvious silence, support such claims. How else can it be understood?

From those who do seem to have a good science background, softer versions.
Scientists who say Science provides proof of many things.
Scientists who say Science provides proof there is no god.
I am not saying most scientists would make these claims. On boards such as this there are many.

Add
There are recent examples of wannabes denying the place of logic and critical thinking in Philosophy, and denying the value of the Humanities for mankind. Implying, if not outright stating, only science can provide knowledge. I see nothing unusual in this type if attitude, and claims. Rather, they are very typical, both the claims of the wannabes, and the silence of the scientists.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 50 by BeHereNow]

And that is where we are today. The gold standard of the Scientific Method, is sometimes little more than tarnished brass.

What was the point of that blatant anti-science rant? There are not "dozens" of versions of the scientific method, and certainly not multiple versions in a given discipline. It is very simple:

1) Put forth a hypothesis.

2) Carry out observations and experiments to test the hypothesis.

3) Accept, reject or refine the hypothesis based on the results of #2.

4) Repeat if needed, or elevate the hypothesis to the status of scientific theory.

Science, carried out via the scientific method, has produced the understanding of nature that we have today, as well as the incredible technological achievements that create the modern world. It has proven its validity and usefulness over and over again ... nothing else even comes close.

Oh, your post here.
There are many forms if the SM. The one I learned had FIVE steps.
Now, maybe that is no big deal to you. I would have failed my test with an answer like that.
In my lifetime, major change in SM. Not everyone is on board, making variations.
Computer models and simulations are sophisticated thought experiments. They have the same issue as all thought experiments. Like they say, garbage in, garbage out.
I will start a thread demonstrating the failings of current applications of the SM.
Errors compounded by errors. Common knowledge in the scientific community, or so I thought. You seem clueless.
I provide documentation, and quotes.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 63 by BeHereNow]

All you have done is create a giant straw man and proceeded to attack it, mostly with unsupported assertions.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 63 by BeHereNow]

Now the wannabes, different story there. I have heard all of those things, many times from them. Scientists were lurking, said nothing. Virtually every time.

What is a "wannabe"? Is this someone with no science education, who pretends otherwise, and proceeds to criticize science from the outside based on some opinion they may have?

So the wannbabes espouse scientism, as I presented. Do you doubt that?

Again, what/who are these wannabes and "wannbabes" that you are referring to? I don't know if I doubt that these people espouse scientism or not since you haven't defined what or who they are.

Scientists, by their obvious silence, support such claims. How else can it be understood?

Silence on what? Are you referring to things that these mysterious "wannabes" and "wannbabes" are saying? If they are spouting nonsense why would anyone in the real science community respond to it?

Scientists who say Science provides proof of many things.

It does. And it continues to work on things that are not yet understood. That is what science is all about.

Scientists who say Science provides proof there is no god.

Who says that? There is no scientific proof or scientific evidence that there IS a god of any type, but science does not claim to have proven that there is no god. Or is this a comment from one of your wannabes or wannbabes?

Computer models and simulations are sophisticated thought experiments. They have the same issue as all thought experiments. Like they say, garbage in, garbage out.
I will start a thread demonstrating the failings of current applications of the SM.
Errors compounded by errors. Common knowledge in the scientific community, or so I thought. You seem clueless.
I provide documentation, and quotes.

Clueless of what? I am certainly clueless as to what a wannabe or wannbabe is in the context of this discussion, but it sounds to me as if you are promoting some sort of conspiracy theory orchestrated by real scientists against whatever these wannabes and wannbabes are, and that you don't understand what the scientific method actually is or what it has accomplished but want to attack it for some reason. Are you a wannabe, or a wannbabe?

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 63 by BeHereNow]

Now the wannabes, different story there. I have heard all of those things, many times from them. Scientists were lurking, said nothing. Virtually every time.

What is a "wannabe"? Is this someone with no science education, who pretends otherwise, and proceeds to criticize science from the outside based on some opinion they may have?

You reading for comprehensive are lacking, or you are being intentionally obtuse, or both. As I have said, they advocate for science to the exclusion of other sources of knowledge. They make claims about knowledge Science provides that does not exist. Never once have I implied they criticized Science. I have made it clear the opposite is true.

So the wannbabes espouse scientism, as I presented. Do you doubt that?

Again, what/who are these wannabes and "wannbabes" that you are referring to? I don't know if I doubt that these people espouse scientism or not since you haven't defined what or who they are.

I will simplify the question, since you have problems with comprehension. Do you doubt any person, living or now dead, make these claims about Scuence?

Scientists, by their obvious silence, support such claims. How else can it be understood?

Silence on what? Are you referring to things that these mysterious "wannabes" and "wannbabes" are saying? If they are spouting nonsense why would anyone in the real science community respond to it?

Let me help you again.
Those who are not atheists, make statements about their beliefs, and those who claim to have a Science background are quick to respond that it is nonsense. They are quick to respond to what they consider nonsense, that are in disciplines outside their range of expertise.
If they are willing to do this, it seems inconsistent to not do it for claims about their chosen field of endeavor. It seems bigoted to criticize claims of other disciplines, but allow false claims about their own discipline.
It defies reason that they would respond to what they perceive to be nonsense in other disciplines, but ignore similar nonsense in their own discipline, unless their silence is approval.
Does that help?

Scientists who say Science provides proof of many things.

It does. And it continues to work on things that are not yet understood. That is what science is all about.

Well, that is a problem. Professional Scientists disagree with you, as well as logic and reaon. It would be helpful if you could substantiate your claims. Here is mine:
One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.� Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof .

~~

jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford:

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics?
This isn’t a “result�, as it is not an output of a physical experiment, but it is a fundamental tenet of science that every student eventually has to come to terms with when they study the field.

That is: there is no such thing as proof.

~~

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories.. Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof.

~~

Many people who do not actively practice science do not understand that science is structured so that scientists can never prove anything.

~~

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

~~

This last one points out the logic and reasoning that Science does not offer proof. It is common knowledge that any claim of Science, or scientists, is capable of being denied, due to sufficient evidence it is false. Historically many "iron clad" claims of scientists have been reversed. What had been taught a "Scientific fact", was false. No claim by scientists is recognized as being "impossible to refute". Corrections of false beliefs of scientists is an ongoing and never ending process. This is not denied, but pointed to as a strength.
Thus your claim is contrary to a bedrock principle of Science, and Scientists.

Scientists who say Science provides proof there is no god.

Who says that? There is no scientific proof or scientific evidence that there IS a god of any type, but science does not claim to have proven that there is no god. Or is this a comment from one of your wannabes or wannbabes?

Science starts with certain assumptions. Assumptions are claims that are assumed to be true, with no proof.
These assumptions preclude Science from providing any evidence concerning the supernatural.
Science, by its nature, and its core assumptions, is incapable of providing any claims, for or against, any supernatural claim.
There are those who use the tools of Science, outside the parameters of Science, to make claims they say are supported by Science.
Statements such as "There is no scientific proof or scientific evidence that there IS a god of any type", has as much credibility as "There is no scientific evidence Beethoven was a great musician."
Big whoop. Who cares. Science has no business making claims about the abilities of any musician. Such judgements are outside the parameters of Science. And so it is concerning claims for or against God.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 67 by BeHereNow]

You continue to add straw to your straw man and attack it with a vengeance. The unsupported claims you make largely originate from religious propaganda sources rather than genuine scientists. Scientists do not talk in terms of proofs. That is the domain of mathematics. Scientists work from evidence and develop the best theories possible that explain the available evidence. As more information and knowledge accumulates, accepted theories are modified accordingly. That is one of the strengths of the scientific method. If you can outline a better method of sifting fact from fiction and increasing our knowledge and understanding then please present it. Unfortunately, revelation just doesn't pass muster.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 67 by BeHereNow]

You continue to add straw to your straw man and attack it with a vengeance. The unsupported claims you make largely originate from religious propaganda sources rather than genuine scientists. Scientists do not talk in terms of proofs. That is the domain of mathematics. Scientists work from evidence and develop the best theories possible that explain the available evidence. As more information and knowledge accumulates, accepted theories are modified accordingly. That is one of the strengths of the scientific method. If you can outline a better method of sifting fact from fiction and increasing our knowledge and understanding then please present it. Unfortunately, revelation just doesn't pass muster.

All of these claims with not a shred of evidence.
Opinion contrary to documented substantiation, with no support for your opinion.
Opinion, contrary to recognized professionals.
Implied claims I have said there are better competing systems, when I have said the opposite. There is no other generally recognized system for describing the natural world. In its prescribed and stated role, it is alone.

Being "The Best" does not even imply excellence.
Being "The Best" in no way implies there are not problems and weaknesses.

Being better at something outside the parameters of other disciplines is a hallow victory.
I have not even seen justification for making claims beyond the purview of Science.
Claims without justification can not be claimed as knowledge, or truthful. They are unsubstantiated opinions, nothing more.

As I have pointed out in other posts, those who object to claims of Religion, Philosophy, or any non-science, habitually refuse to substantiate any of their beliefs.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 67 by BeHereNow]

You reading for comprehensive are lacking, or you are being intentionally obtuse, or both. As I have said, they advocate for science to the exclusion of other sources of knowledge. They make claims about knowledge Science provides that does not exist. Never once have I implied they criticized Science. I have made it clear the opposite is true

I think my reading comprehension is fine, but in your original rant (post 50) you implied (since you didn't define the term) that "wannabes" have a different view than a "real" scientist concerning the meaning of the word "proof" in science. But real scientists don't claim there is absolute "proof" of anything, but rather elevate a hypothesis to a theory when it is sufficiently supported by observation and evidence. If there is another category of person you call a "wannabe", who does claim that science deals in absolute proofs, then that person is not a legitimate scientist and should be ignored ... for example like the pseudoscientists employed by organizations such as Answers in Genesis and the like who try to twist science to suit their predetermined position, or mix it with "god did it" to try and make their case. Why would you pay any attention to these "wannabes"?

I will simplify the question, since you have problems with comprehension. Do you doubt any person, living or now dead, make these claims about Scuence?

Part of the problem may be with your too-vague descriptions, like in this quote where you did not rephrase a question but asked another one. I don't know what 'these claims" refer to at this point. But it is always possible to find some small number of people who make claims out of the main stream or push their own agenda. That is not at all unusual ... it doesn't mean you have to believe every person with an opinion just because they may have a degree.

Does that help?

No ... it is just the usual position of a theist who doesn't accept any science that refutes their religious beliefs, or disproves some aspect of those beliefs, but is happy to accept it otherwise.

Well, that is a problem. Professional Scientists disagree with you, as well as logic and reaon. It would be helpful if you could substantiate your claims.

The earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. This is called the heliocentric "theory", but the observational evidence that supports it makes the probability of it being correct as close to 100% as is possible within science. Most people would call that "proof" that the heliocentric theory is correct, but it is not a formal proof as in mathematics. That is semantics. To say that science has not "proven" that the heliocentric description is correct to essentially 100% certainty is disingenuous and playing with words. This is the kind of thing I was referring to ... and there are many similar examples where science has "proven" a concept to be correct, even if the formal description is not called a proof. The scientific method does not use the word proof ... it uses the word theory when a hypothesis has been sufficiently supported by evidence and observation that it is accepted to be correct. You are playing with words in your description.

Corrections of false beliefs of scientists is an ongoing and never ending process. This is not denied, but pointed to as a strength.
Thus your claim is contrary to a bedrock principle of Science, and Scientists.

I made no claim to the contrary, but said exactly this. You are playing with words again.

Science starts with certain assumptions. Assumptions are claims that are assumed to be true, with no proof.
These assumptions preclude Science from providing any evidence concerning the supernatural.

Science doesn't deal in the supernatural because, by definition, it isn't real. Gods and devils and that sort of thing do fall outside the realm of science, but that is not a deficiency of science as you keep implying with your straw man arguments. It is a strength of science that it does not deal with imaginary constructs like gods which cannot be investigated via observation and measurement.