What is science

[KingandPriest]

In various debates, some have opted of putting science against Christianity or the bible in general. There are those who argue that science is completely different, while others claim there are similarities between faith in science and faith in the claims found in the bible.

I hold that science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge on a particular subject. There are various branches of knowledge to study which result in the various "sciences" we have in the world today. As a whole science relies on both empirical and non-empirical types of evidence to support and establish claims, theories and observed repeatable events. The natural sciences attempt to focus solely on empirical evidence as much as possible, while other bodies of knowledge may use empirical evidence or non-empirical evidence.

As of today, there are 15 types of evidence which can be used to test the validity of a claim. These are:

Testimonial evidence
Statistical / Mathematical evidence
Presumptive evidence
Hearsay evidence
Documentation evidence
Demonstrative evidence
Circumstantial evidence
Character evidence
Analogical evidence
Anecdotal evidence
Physical evidence
Digital evidence
Direct evidence
Exculpatory evidence
Forensic evidence

Of the 15 mentioned above, the scientific method demands that evidence is limited to empirical evidence, and dismisses 10 other types of evidence. The natural sciences are required to dismiss other types of evidence that cannot be proven empirically.

To this I ask:

1. What is science?
2. Are all the types of "sciences" equal?
3. What is science based on?
4. Do different sciences base knowledge on the same principals or evidences?

[Divine Insight]

To this I ask:

1. What is science?
2. Are all the types of "sciences" equal?
3. What is science based on?
4. Do different sciences base knowledge on the same principals or evidences?

Unfortunately the term "science" is often used quite abstractly as are almost all words that have been invented by humans.

From Wikipedia:

Science[nb 1][2]:58[3] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2]

Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material universe; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, which study logic and mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[4] Disciplines which use science, like engineering and medicine, may also be considered to be applied sciences.[5]

Notice that one thing all types of sciences have in common: "Testable explanations and predictions"

Notice also that many things that are referred to as "sciences" are often excluded as "Formal Sciences" because they do not depend on empirical observations.

In fact, many mathematicians consider mathematics to be a science. It has even been dubbed "The Queen of the Sciences" by Carl Friedrich Gauss. However, mathematical formalism doesn't truly qualify as an empirical science.

Many physical scientists also question the "social sciences" as be valid science as well. They often point out that these are based far more on mathematical statistics that try to associate social experiences in a statistical manner. While this can produce useful results, it can still be questioned in terms of calling it serious science.

In various debates, some have opted of putting science against Christianity or the bible in general.

I see this as often being the other way around. Theists often try to argue that science has no superiority to religion. However, I think where the difference occurs is in the criteria of "Testable explanations and predictions". This is where religion fails miserably.

Even the "social sciences" that are based mainly on mathematical statistics fair better than religion in their predictions.

When the predictions of theology are tested they almost always fail. And when they do show some positive results those results never turn out to be any better than you would get from the random chance of tossing dice.

[benchwarmer]

I hold that science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

What you describe is learning. Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge.

To this I ask:

1. What is science?
2. Are all the types of "sciences" equal?
3. What is science based on?
4. Do different sciences base knowledge on the same principals or evidences?

1. See above and/or google.

2. What do you mean by 'equal'? Some sciences can make accurate predictions based on current knowledge and certain starting conditions. Other sciences rely on statistics and provide more of a 'best guess' based on currently accumulated data. All science is important for understanding our universe.

3. The scientific method.

4. Not clear what you mean. They all base knowledge on observation and put forth hypotheses based on accumulated knowledge. Further observation and validation of the hypotheses either results in validating predictions or falsifying them.

It feels like you are trying to say some science might be based on random musings with no basis in reality and thus somehow equate religion to science. I could be wildly off.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Do I detect an attempt to plead for acceptance of unverifiable evidence?

I disagree with the proffered definition of science. Consulting scientific sources rather than a personal opinion from an anonymous Internet poster:

1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.

Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb in a lecture series at the University of South Alabama

Science involves more than the gaining of knowledge. It is the systematic and organized inquiry into the natural world and its phenomena. Science is about gaining a deeper and often useful understanding of the world.

from the Multicultural History of Science page at Vanderbilt University.

Science consists simply of the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on observational evidence; experiments are important where applicable, but their function is merely to simplify observation by imposing controlled conditions.

Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html

And

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.
The scientific method

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
http://www.livescience.com/20896-scienc ... ethod.html

Let's consider some of the forms of non-scientific evidence as they apply to the Loch Ness Monster. Applied to a list presented by KingandPriest:

Testimonial evidence – plenty of testimonies, often contradictory
Presumptive evidence – many presumptions, highly variable
Hearsay evidence – abundant hearsay
Documentation evidence – many books / articles / accounts
Circumstantial evidence – perhaps
Character evidence – character of reporters?
Analogical evidence – compared to what?
Anecdotal evidence – plenty, a version of testimonial.

Shall we conclude that stories about Nessie are true based on the above 'evidence'? Would a more reasoned position be that the stories MAY be true but that has not been established beyond speculation / opinion level?

Now let's consider some of the forms of non-scientific evidence as they apply to Bible stories about God, Jesus and their claimed supernatural feats.

Testimonial evidence – plenty of testimonies, often contradictory
Presumptive evidence – many presumptions, highly variable
Hearsay evidence – abundant hearsay
Documentation evidence – many books / articles / accounts
Circumstantial evidence – perhaps
Character evidence – character of reporters?
Analogical evidence – compared to what?
Anecdotal evidence – plenty, a version of testimonial.

Shall we conclude that Bible stories are true based on the above 'evidence'? Would a more reasoned position be that the stories MAY be true but that has not been established beyond speculation / opinion level?

[KingandPriest]

I hold that science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

What you describe is learning. Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge.

When something is studied, you will invariably accumulate information, data and evidence. Biology is the "study of" living organisms. Many sciences use the suffix 'ology' to denote that branch of science is the study of a particular segment of the natural world. This is why new information is always applauded. We don't just look at the accumulation of old data, and make predictions. We also study and learn from new never before seen observations. We learn from new data, and then study it, and make predictions over and over until they are repeatable and verifiable.

To this I ask:

1. What is science?
2. Are all the types of "sciences" equal?
3. What is science based on?
4. Do different sciences base knowledge on the same principals or evidences?

1. See above and/or google.

2. What do you mean by 'equal'? Some sciences can make accurate predictions based on current knowledge and certain starting conditions. Other sciences rely on statistics and provide more of a 'best guess' based on currently accumulated data. All science is important for understanding our universe.

3. The scientific method.

4. Not clear what you mean. They all base knowledge on observation and put forth hypotheses based on accumulated knowledge. Further observation and validation of the hypotheses either results in validating predictions or falsifying them.

It feels like you are trying to say some science might be based on random musings with no basis in reality and thus somehow equate religion to science. I could be wildly off.

1. Google and other sources appear to match the definition I provided more closely than what you wrote.

2. What I mean by equal, is that some make it seem as though all sciences are equal in their foundation and application of the scientific method. Just because something falls under the umbrella of science, does not mean it applies the same standards as other bodies of knowledge. Chemistry requires far more precision and specificity than geology. The field of medicine has a higher burden than cosmology. To equate all sciences as though they are on equal footing is a mistake in my opinion. So to clarify, my question is asking if all of the various branches within science equal in their trustworthiness?

3. Do all sciences (bodies of knowledge) rely on the scientific method to the same degree? For example, does theoretical physics rely on the scientific method in the same manner as applied physics? Does one allow more non-empirical evidence than the other?

4. Similar to the questions above. Do all branches of science require the same level of specificity using the scientific method? or Do the various branches of science decide how much empirical vs non-empirical evidence is sufficient?

I am not saying that science may be based on random ramblings. I am just trying to point out that science is not a cohesive and consistent applier of the scientific method as some portray it to be. Science is flexible in the application of the scientific method with regard to the specific body of knowledge being studied. For those where we can get a lot of empirical data such as geology (because we live on the Earth and can touch, examine and study) the standards of the scientific method are more stringent. For things like cosmology, theoretical physics or theology, the requirement of strict empirical evidence is lower because we know these fields are limited in the amount of empirical evidence that can be supplied.

As of today, we can only travel to distant regions in the solar system, galaxy and universe via telescope. This is a limited form of empirical evidence in comparison to geology, where we can see pictures, touch, analyze, etc. So by comparison, geology is supported by more empirical evidence than cosmology. Both are branches of science, just like theoretical physics and theology are branches of science that focus on the study of different bodies of knowledge, with limited empirical evidence to support.

[benchwarmer]

I hold that science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge on a particular subject.

What you describe is learning. Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge.

When something is studied, you will invariably accumulate information, data and evidence. Biology is the "study of" living organisms. Many sciences use the suffix 'ology' to denote that branch of science is the study of a particular segment of the natural world. This is why new information is always applauded. We don't just look at the accumulation of old data, and make predictions. We also study and learn from new never before seen observations. We learn from new data, and then study it, and make predictions over and over until they are repeatable and verifiable.

Umm, you are agreeing with me.

You wrote: "science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge"

I wrote: "Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation"

Then you wrote: "We also study and learn from new never before seen observations"


I was pointing out that you said science was about studying knowledge. I replied that science is about accumulating said knowledge, not just studying what we already know. See the difference? I think maybe you just misspoke or had some typos in your first salvo since your reply to me agrees with what I said.

1. Google and other sources appear to match the definition I provided more closely than what you wrote.

No it does not. It matches more what you wrote the second time, which is basically what I wrote the first time. We can either keep going around in a circle here or you can just admit you made a small mistake in your first post. We all make mistakes, I've made plenty.

2. What I mean by equal, is that some make it seem as though all sciences are equal in their foundation and application of the scientific method. Just because something falls under the umbrella of science, does not mean it applies the same standards as other bodies of knowledge.

Ok, I'm not sure what we are debating here. Are we debating that some people don't think all real science is science or are we debating that not all science is real science. I would agree with the first one and disagree with the second one. Science is science assuming you are applying the scientific method. If you don't apply the scientific method you are not doing science regardless of what you label it.

Chemistry requires far more precision and specificity than geology.

Really? How so? I know we have someone very familiar with geology here so perhaps they will comment.

The field of medicine has a higher burden than cosmology.

Burden how? Do you mean that medicine is more beneficial to our survival? I would agree, but that has nothing to do with how the scientific method is applied in either field. Just because we rely on something more does not make it more 'sciencey' than other fields of science.

To equate all sciences as though they are on equal footing is a mistake in my opinion. So to clarify, my question is asking if all of the various branches within science equal in their trustworthiness?

Any hypothesis in science is only as good as it's ability to provide knowledge that is verifiable. Science is science. We arbitrarily label different branches of science because we like to label things. Basically it seems you are trying to assert that some scientific branches are not as valid as others. What you probably mean is that some hypotheses are not validated by data like some others are. Throwing entire branches of science under the bus based on the areas of study seems very odd.

3. Do all sciences (bodies of knowledge) rely on the scientific method to the same degree?

If it is valid science we are talking about then yes. To be science you must use the scientific method. If you use some other method you are not doing science.

For example, does theoretical physics rely on the scientific method in the same manner as applied physics? Does one allow more non-empirical evidence than the other?

Yes, they both rely on the scientific method. Do you have an example where they do not? Perhaps you are just not clear on what the scientific method is? I think maybe you are confusing theoretical physicists with theoretical physics. Do scientists in every branch of science do actual science all the time? Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that when they are applying the scientific method to any area, they are doing science by definition.

4. Similar to the questions above. Do all branches of science require the same level of specificity using the scientific method? or Do the various branches of science decide how much empirical vs non-empirical evidence is sufficient?

I think you are asking two different questions. What do you mean by 'specificity'? It sounds like you are implying that a theoretical physicist would say "X is true" based on no evidence, but an applied physicist would say "X is true" based on evidence.

I think you need to give an actual example of what you are talking about.

I am not saying that science may be based on random ramblings. I am just trying to point out that science is not a cohesive and consistent applier of the scientific method as some portray it to be.

This again looks like you are conflating the people who do the science with the science itself. Applying the scientific method will yield results which can be added to the body of scientific knowledge. That's basically it in a nutshell.

Science is flexible in the application of the scientific method with regard to the specific body of knowledge being studied. For those where we can get a lot of empirical data such as geology (because we live on the Earth and can touch, examine and study) the standards of the scientific method are more stringent.

Wait a second, didn't you just imply geology wasn't as stringent as chemistry above? You're losing me.

For things like cosmology, theoretical physics or theology, the requirement of strict empirical evidence is lower because we know these fields are limited in the amount of empirical evidence that can be supplied.

It sounds like you are comparing the amount of verifiable knowledge that can come out of each branch of science as a way to figure out how 'equal' it is. In my opinion this is a pointless endeavor. It's like arguing about which is the best ice cream flavor. If any branch of science produces verifiable knowledge then it is useful.

As of today, we can only travel to distant regions in the solar system, galaxy and universe via telescope. This is a limited form of empirical evidence in comparison to geology, where we can see pictures, touch, analyze, etc. So by comparison, geology is supported by more empirical evidence than cosmology. Both are branches of science, just like theoretical physics and theology are branches of science that focus on the study of different bodies of knowledge, with limited empirical evidence to support.

And? Does a supported piece of knowledge from cosmology receive less due than a supported piece of knowledge from geology? Note that by supported I mean verifiable and based on actual observation.

[KingandPriest]

Umm, you are agreeing with me.

You wrote: "science is the activity of systematically studying a body of knowledge"

I wrote: "Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation"

Then you wrote: "We also study and learn from new never before seen observations"


I was pointing out that you said science was about studying knowledge. I replied that science is about accumulating said knowledge, not just studying what we already know. See the difference? I think maybe you just misspoke or had some typos in your first salvo since your reply to me agrees with what I said.

Yes, I am agreeing with you that science includes the accumulation of knowledge. What I disagree with is that studying a body of knowledge is limited to studying what we already know. To study something includes the accumulation of past data as well as new data. Accumulation is a part of studying something. You appear to treat the two as different, while I merely point out that they basically describe the same function.

1. Google and other sources appear to match the definition I provided more closely than what you wrote.

No it does not. It matches more what you wrote the second time, which is basically what I wrote the first time. We can either keep going around in a circle here or you can just admit you made a small mistake in your first post. We all make mistakes, I've made plenty.

I agree, no point in arguing over semantics. The concept of what we are saying is the same, just using different words. I use the word study while you use the word accumulation.

2. What I mean by equal, is that some make it seem as though all sciences are equal in their foundation and application of the scientific method. Just because something falls under the umbrella of science, does not mean it applies the same standards as other bodies of knowledge.

Ok, I'm not sure what we are debating here. Are we debating that some people don't think all real science is science or are we debating that not all science is real science. I would agree with the first one and disagree with the second one. Science is science assuming you are applying the scientific method. If you don't apply the scientific method you are not doing science regardless of what you label it.

Then your definition of what is science is flawed. No where in your descriptions of what science is did you include the scientific method.

You wrote "Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge."

Observation as well as prediction were the only requirements for something to be called science. Now you change the requirement to only that which applies the scientific method. Which is it?

Chemistry requires far more precision and specificity than geology.

Really? How so? I know we have someone very familiar with geology here so perhaps they will comment.

If you notice the key words here were precision and specificity. Discerning the chemical composition and energy needed to change the structure of a molecule requires more precision than identifying layers of earth. When attempting to balance a chemical equation, to produce a new chemical, the margin of error is very small. In geology, the margin of error is much larger because the same level of precision is not required to generate effective results.

The field of medicine has a higher burden than cosmology.

Burden how? Do you mean that medicine is more beneficial to our survival? I would agree, but that has nothing to do with how the scientific method is applied in either field. Just because we rely on something more does not make it more 'sciencey' than other fields of science.

No, I mean the burden of proof. To prove something correct in cosmology, less corroborating empirical data is needed in comparison to the medicine.

To equate all sciences as though they are on equal footing is a mistake in my opinion. So to clarify, my question is asking if all of the various branches within science equal in their trustworthiness?

Any hypothesis in science is only as good as it's ability to provide knowledge that is verifiable. Science is science. We arbitrarily label different branches of science because we like to label things. Basically it seems you are trying to assert that some scientific branches are not as valid as others. What you probably mean is that some hypotheses are not validated by data like some others are. Throwing entire branches of science under the bus based on the areas of study seems very odd.

No, I am not talking about hypothesis. I am talking about the way people use the word science as though all branches of sciences use the same amount of empirical data. Or how some like to think that science does not rely on non-empirical data.

My point is that all sciences as a whole use a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence. Depending on the specific branch of science, the amount of empirical evidence will fluctuate. To make a broad claim that science relies only on empirical evidence while other bodies of knowledge such as theology do not is a false statement. Both science and theology rely on a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence.

To assert that science relies solely on empirical evidence is a lie, that can easily be disproved. To assert that theology has not empirical evidence to support it, can also be easily disproved.

3. Do all sciences (bodies of knowledge) rely on the scientific method to the same degree?

If it is valid science we are talking about then yes. To be science you must use the scientific method. If you use some other method you are not doing science.

When you say doing science do you mean doing a science experiment?

Do you assert that the only valid types of science are those which include experiments?

For example, does theoretical physics rely on the scientific method in the same manner as applied physics? Does one allow more non-empirical evidence than the other?

Yes, they both rely on the scientific method. Do you have an example where they do not? Perhaps you are just not clear on what the scientific method is? I think maybe you are confusing theoretical physicists with theoretical physics. Do scientists in every branch of science do actual science all the time? Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that when they are applying the scientific method to any area, they are doing science by definition.

Ok, that question poorly conveyed what I was trying to ask. What I meant to ask was does theoretical physics rely on the same requirements of empirical evidence when using the scientific method as applied physics? Does one allow more non-empirical evidence than the other?

4. Similar to the questions above. Do all branches of science require the same level of specificity using the scientific method? or Do the various branches of science decide how much empirical vs non-empirical evidence is sufficient?

I think you are asking two different questions. What do you mean by 'specificity'? It sounds like you are implying that a theoretical physicist would say "X is true" based on no evidence, but an applied physicist would say "X is true" based on evidence.

I think you need to give an actual example of what you are talking about.

For example lets compare the the concept of cosmic inflation which falls under the branch of theoretical physics and cosmology. Inflation uses indirect empirical evidence and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the concept is substantiated.

Lets compare that to applied physics which requires direct empirical evidence to substantiate a concept. Applied physics demands a higher level of empirical evidence because if something needs to be built and used in the physical world, we demand a greater level of confidence.

I am not saying that science may be based on random ramblings. I am just trying to point out that science is not a cohesive and consistent applier of the scientific method as some portray it to be.

This again looks like you are conflating the people who do the science with the science itself. Applying the scientific method will yield results which can be added to the body of scientific knowledge. That's basically it in a nutshell.

The scientific method is a process. If you input strong data, you will end with strong empirical proof that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect. If you input weak data you will end with weak or inconclusive proof.

Not all results produced by the scientific method yield the same level of confidence.

Science is flexible in the application of the scientific method with regard to the specific body of knowledge being studied. For those where we can get a lot of empirical data such as geology (because we live on the Earth and can touch, examine and study) the standards of the scientific method are more stringent.

Wait a second, didn't you just imply geology wasn't as stringent as chemistry above? You're losing me.

No, I stated that geology is not a precise as chemistry. This does not mean geology is lacking empirical evidence or support. Geology is one of the sciences with a great deal of empirical evidence because it focuses strictly on the planet we live on. This makes for strong input data into the scientific method. Compare this input to the data which went into dating the planets in our solar system. We know the approximate age of our solar system as a whole, and the approximate age of the earth. We have very limited data that supports the sun being older than the earth. It is possible that the sun is older, but it is just as possible that the earth is older.

Even though the data is weak, the older age for the sun is accepted based on presumptive evidence not empirical evidence.

For things like cosmology, theoretical physics or theology, the requirement of strict empirical evidence is lower because we know these fields are limited in the amount of empirical evidence that can be supplied.

It sounds like you are comparing the amount of verifiable knowledge that can come out of each branch of science as a way to figure out how 'equal' it is. In my opinion this is a pointless endeavor. It's like arguing about which is the best ice cream flavor. If any branch of science produces verifiable knowledge then it is useful.

Why is this pointless?

Is this not the same as comparing the amount of verifiable knowledge that cam come out of theology?

As of today, we can only travel to distant regions in the solar system, galaxy and universe via telescope. This is a limited form of empirical evidence in comparison to geology, where we can see pictures, touch, analyze, etc. So by comparison, geology is supported by more empirical evidence than cosmology. Both are branches of science, just like theoretical physics and theology are branches of science that focus on the study of different bodies of knowledge, with limited empirical evidence to support.

And? Does a supported piece of knowledge from cosmology receive less due than a supported piece of knowledge from geology? Note that by supported I mean verifiable and based on actual observation.

Skeptics of Christianity typically assert that they refuse to trust the supported pieces of knowledge presented by Christianity because the type of phenomenon being observed is considered weak empirical evidence or non-empirical evidence.

If this same skepticism is applied to certain claims of geology and cosmology, than some claims of geology should be rejected for the same reasons as why skeptical non-theists reject Christianity.

[Zzyzx]

.
From someone familiar with geology -- a reply in separate thread

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 670#829670

[benchwarmer]

Yes, I am agreeing with you that science includes the accumulation of knowledge.

So far so good.

What I disagree with is that studying a body of knowledge is limited to studying what we already know.

If something is already in the body of knowledge, how can it not be known? If we don't know it, it is not in the body of knowledge. Once we learn something new, in it goes.

You are confusing 'body of knowledge' and 'area of study'.

To study something includes the accumulation of past data as well as new data. Accumulation is a part of studying something. You appear to treat the two as different, while I merely point out that they basically describe the same function.

I'm trying to point out that studying what we know is called learning. Discovering something we don't know will add to what we know and become part of the body of knowledge.

I agree, no point in arguing over semantics. The concept of what we are saying is the same, just using different words. I use the word study while you use the word accumulation.

Ok, well let's drop that then. Just know that as soon as you start debating in a scientific realm, definitions start becoming more important and mean specific things. Lumping what we already know and what we would like to discover into 'body of knowledge' is not helpful.

Then your definition of what is science is flawed. No where in your descriptions of what science is did you include the scientific method.

You wrote "Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge."

Observation as well as prediction were the only requirements for something to be called science. Now you change the requirement to only that which applies the scientific method. Which is it?

Ok, well obviously I thought you were more familiar with the scientific method. My bad. I admit making a mistake and not being crystal clear here. The following is still not exhaustive, but hopefully clear enough. If not, please ask.

I chose the following because it includes a nice diagram. Again, it's not exhaustive, but gives a high level view of the scientific method. You'll note it includes what I already discussed though maybe not in the exact same words.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/ ... node6.html

What is the ``scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Chemistry requires far more precision and specificity than geology.

Really? How so? I know we have someone very familiar with geology here so perhaps they will comment.

If you notice the key words here were precision and specificity. Discerning the chemical composition and energy needed to change the structure of a molecule requires more precision than identifying layers of earth. When attempting to balance a chemical equation, to produce a new chemical, the margin of error is very small. In geology, the margin of error is much larger because the same level of precision is not required to generate effective results.

Your lack of knowledge about geology is clear. Granted I also lack knowledge in this field, but I'm familiar enough with the scientific method to know that what you state is overly simplified and not true. I see Zzyzx has started a separate thread to clear up your misconceptions.

The field of medicine has a higher burden than cosmology.

Burden how? Do you mean that medicine is more beneficial to our survival? I would agree, but that has nothing to do with how the scientific method is applied in either field. Just because we rely on something more does not make it more 'sciencey' than other fields of science.

No, I mean the burden of proof. To prove something correct in cosmology, less corroborating empirical data is needed in comparison to the medicine.

This is incorrect. In science there is no 100% proof anything is correct. There is only evidence (observed data) that backs up a given hypothesis. All hypotheses are falsifiable or they are not valid. In other words, if you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, a new hypothesis must be created. See Scientific method above. You are again arguing that some hypotheses are not validated by evidence and other ones are and this somehow means one branch of science is not 'equal' to another one. Both cosmology and medicine have validated and unvalidated hypotheses. It's not a competition.

No, I am not talking about hypothesis. I am talking about the way people use the word science as though all branches of sciences use the same amount of empirical data. Or how some like to think that science does not rely on non-empirical data.

So now we are back to talking about people. Yes, some people misconstrue what science is about. No argument from me.

However, you are lumping validated and unvalidated hypotheses under the same umbrella and then declaring one branch of science as relying on non-empirical data.

Only a concrete example can clear this up.

My point is that all sciences as a whole use a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence. Depending on the specific branch of science, the amount of empirical evidence will fluctuate. To make a broad claim that science relies only on empirical evidence while other bodies of knowledge such as theology do not is a false statement. Both science and theology rely on a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence.

It seems you are trying to prop up theology as a whole by showing that science includes hypotheses that are not yet validated. My argument would be that both fields include hypotheses that can be validated and those that can not be. It just happens that theology seems to have a lot more that can't be validated.

To assert that science relies solely on empirical evidence is a lie, that can easily be disproved. To assert that theology has not empirical evidence to support it, can also be easily disproved.

It feels like you are building a strawman here. Science relies on the scientific method. Full stop. Theology relies on <please fill in the blank>.

When you say doing science do you mean doing a science experiment?

I mean using the scientific method.

Do you assert that the only valid types of science are those which include experiments?

I assert that the only valid types of science are those that use the scientific method.

Ok, that question poorly conveyed what I was trying to ask. What I meant to ask was does theoretical physics rely on the same requirements of empirical evidence when using the scientific method as applied physics? Does one allow more non-empirical evidence than the other?

Both branches rely on the scientific method. Yes, I'm being a broken record. Obviously theoretical physics involves a lot more theories (hypotheses) and applied physics takes those hypotheses that have shown to be valid and uses them to discover other things. It's all physics and all part of the scientific method. Just because one person does step 1 and another does steps 2 -4 does not make the process invalid or the work of any person in the chain invalid. If theoretical physicists never received validation of their theories, they wouldn't run around claiming something works as predicted would they?

For example lets compare the the concept of cosmic inflation which falls under the branch of theoretical physics and cosmology. Inflation uses indirect empirical evidence and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the concept is substantiated.

Lets compare that to applied physics which requires direct empirical evidence to substantiate a concept. Applied physics demands a higher level of empirical evidence because if something needs to be built and used in the physical world, we demand a greater level of confidence.

Ok, so are you saying scientists claim that cosmic inflation is a validated concept, but they make that claim using no observation of reality? Perhaps the truth is that they have put forward a hypothesis and are still validating it?

Applied physics uses the exact same method to validate hypotheses. Observe reality.

When it comes to building something, you move on to engineering. Engineers take what all the scientists have learned and validated and try to build something useful. Engineers don't waste time trying to build something based on unvalidated claims.

You still seem to be stuck on comparing unvalidated hypotheses and validated ones and using that to call one branch or other of science 'better'. The you use this claim to somehow show theology isn't so bad after all.

I really don't get the point. If theology has valid, verifiable information to share, share it. Don't spend your time trying to show perceived weakness in other fields of endeavor.

No, I stated that geology is not a precise as chemistry. This does not mean geology is lacking empirical evidence or support. Geology is one of the sciences with a great deal of empirical evidence because it focuses strictly on the planet we live on. This makes for strong input data into the scientific method. Compare this input to the data which went into dating the planets in our solar system. We know the approximate age of our solar system as a whole, and the approximate age of the earth. We have very limited data that supports the sun being older than the earth. It is possible that the sun is older, but it is just as possible that the earth is older.

Even though the data is weak, the older age for the sun is accepted based on presumptive evidence not empirical evidence.

I think you are missing some words here. The ages of the sun and planets are not known to an exact number. Science makes no claim that it is. What is claimed is that based on current knowledge and observation, the ages appear to be <fill in whatever the latest values are>. The point you seem to be glossing over is that all science is subject to the scientific method. The last point of that method is to repeat the process until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. Does theology work like that?

If this same skepticism is applied to certain claims of geology and cosmology, than some claims of geology should be rejected for the same reasons as why skeptical non-theists reject Christianity.

Again, you are lumping things together when they shouldn't be. I personally reject claims based on either lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. This applies equally in science and theology. I personally reject Christianity as portrayed in the Bible and in the churches I've been a member of because there are too many claims that are verifiably false or have no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

[KingandPriest]

What I disagree with is that studying a body of knowledge is limited to studying what we already know.

If something is already in the body of knowledge, how can it not be known? If we don't know it, it is not in the body of knowledge. Once we learn something new, in it goes.

You are confusing 'body of knowledge' and 'area of study'.

Can body of knowledge and area of study be used interchangeably?
Is chemistry a body of knowledge?
Is chemistry an area of study?

To all three I say yes. A body of knowledge is not static or limited to what we have accumulated in the past. It also includes what we are currently learning.

To study something includes the accumulation of past data as well as new data. Accumulation is a part of studying something. You appear to treat the two as different, while I merely point out that they basically describe the same function.

I'm trying to point out that studying what we know is called learning. Discovering something we don't know will add to what we know and become part of the body of knowledge.

Wouldn't all of this equate to an area of study. They are essentially the same thing stated differently. We use different words to describe the same thing.

I agree, no point in arguing over semantics. The concept of what we are saying is the same, just using different words. I use the word study while you use the word accumulation.

Ok, well let's drop that then. Just know that as soon as you start debating in a scientific realm, definitions start becoming more important and mean specific things. Lumping what we already know and what we would like to discover into 'body of knowledge' is not helpful.

But the term science includes both what we already know and what we would like to discover. What branch of science can you list that separates what we already know with what we would like to discover. Biology is the study of living organisms. This includes those organisms we already know, and the ones we have yet to discover. The science of biology does not carry such a distinction. Maybe you can think of a branch of science that makes this inherent distinction.

Then your definition of what is science is flawed. No where in your descriptions of what science is did you include the scientific method.

You wrote "Science is the accumulation of knowledge based on observation as well as prediction using the currently accumulated knowledge."

Observation as well as prediction were the only requirements for something to be called science. Now you change the requirement to only that which applies the scientific method. Which is it?

Ok, well obviously I thought you were more familiar with the scientific method. My bad. I admit making a mistake and not being crystal clear here. The following is still not exhaustive, but hopefully clear enough. If not, please ask.

I chose the following because it includes a nice diagram. Again, it's not exhaustive, but gives a high level view of the scientific method. You'll note it includes what I already discussed though maybe not in the exact same words.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/ ... node6.html

What is the ``scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

I am familiar with the scientific method. I just wanted to point out that your definition for what science is vs what science is not did not include the scientific method. When you wanted to make a point later on, you introduced the scientific method as the measuring stick for what makes something science or not.

To this, I point out that the scientific method is useful when observing the physical world. The scientific method cannot be used for every aspect of the real world, because there are aspects of the real world which are not physical. For example, the study of the human mind cannot employ the scientific method because there is nothing physical to test. It is difficult to use the scientific method in this instance because the mind is not physical. We can measure electrical impulses in the brain, but we cannot measure a single thought. Ideas, thoughts, opinions are all non-physical. So even the most sincere scientist has to use alternative methods because the scientific method is inadequate.

So for the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.) the scientific method works great. For the non-physical sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, theology, etc) the scientific method does not work so well. For help on understanding the various branches of science see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

No, I mean the burden of proof. To prove something correct in cosmology, less corroborating empirical data is needed in comparison to the medicine.

This is incorrect. In science there is no 100% proof anything is correct. There is only evidence (observed data) that backs up a given hypothesis. All hypotheses are falsifiable or they are not valid. In other words, if you find evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, a new hypothesis must be created. See Scientific method above. You are again arguing that some hypotheses are not validated by evidence and other ones are and this somehow means one branch of science is not 'equal' to another one. Both cosmology and medicine have validated and unvalidated hypotheses. It's not a competition.

When did I write 100% proof. When sufficient evidence (observed data) is offered that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is deemed correct. This does not refute my claim that the field of medicine requires a more evidence to substantiate a theory in comparison to cosmology. Different sciences rely on different amount of supporting empirical evidence. In a branch of the physical sciences like biology, more empirical evidence to substantiate a theory, than would be required in cosmology. I am not saying this is bad or a flaw in science. It is just a reality of the world we live in. Different branches of science rely on different amounts of empirical evidence.

No, I am not talking about hypothesis. I am talking about the way people use the word science as though all branches of sciences use the same amount of empirical data. Or how some like to think that science does not rely on non-empirical data.

So now we are back to talking about people. Yes, some people misconstrue what science is about. No argument from me.

However, you are lumping validated and unvalidated hypotheses under the same umbrella and then declaring one branch of science as relying on non-empirical data.

I lump them under the umbrella of science because they both belong under the same umbrella. The difference is the branch to which the hypotheses may belong to.

Only a concrete example can clear this up.

The nebular hypothesis is the current accepted model for our solar system's formation. This hypothesis is substantiated by indirect empirical evidence. Some of the solar systems we have observed follow the predictions outlined in the hypothesis while others do not. There are many predictions which have been observed, while other predictions have not been observed and are presumed to be correct. All I point out, is that in another physical science such as chemistry or biology, the amount of evidence supporting this theory would be deemed insufficient.

If you argue comparing one branch of science with another branch of science should not be done, then the same should be true of comparing the natural sciences to the social sciences.

My point is that all sciences as a whole use a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence. Depending on the specific branch of science, the amount of empirical evidence will fluctuate. To make a broad claim that science relies only on empirical evidence while other bodies of knowledge such as theology do not is a false statement. Both science and theology rely on a combination of empirical evidence and non-empirical evidence.

It seems you are trying to prop up theology as a whole by showing that science includes hypotheses that are not yet validated. My argument would be that both fields include hypotheses that can be validated and those that can not be. It just happens that theology seems to have a lot more that can't be validated.

Theology is not a physical science, so the method of validating claims is far more difficult. You cannot simplify human behavior or spiritual activity into a simple equation, like you can quantify the electrons in an element. Since the social sciences are more complex than the physical sciences, the scientific method is less effective.

To assert that science relies solely on empirical evidence is a lie, that can easily be disproved. To assert that theology has not empirical evidence to support it, can also be easily disproved.

It feels like you are building a strawman here. Science relies on the scientific method. Full stop. Theology relies on <please fill in the blank>.

You are proving my point. The physical sciences are simple in comparison to the social sciences. Objects without a will, mind or personality can be studied and experimented in a repeatable fashion more easily than a person. How much more complex is it to study God. Even when we put our smartest minds to the task, we are just beginning to understand the complexities of the physical world. How much more to understand the being that created all of it.

This would be like saying because you can understand how an automobile works, you should be able to understand the mind, will and intent of the car manufacturer. We know a car is far more simple in comparison to a human mind, will or intent. We cannot measure intent with empirical evidence alone.

To answer your question, theology relies on the full gambit of evidence (all 15 types listed in the OP). By trying to squeeze God into a box of physical evidence alone, you will invariably miss Him. This would be like looking for evidence of the human race by looking at Jupiter.

Do you assert that the only valid types of science are those which include experiments?

I assert that the only valid types of science are those that use the scientific method.

Are you aware that what you describe is in direct contrast with what science itself stipulates. There are 3 major science groups: formal, natural and social.

Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including fundamental forces and biological life)
Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual, methodology)
Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies.

Natural and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

There are also interdisciplinary sciences that encompass one or more branches of science. The physical or natural sciences prefer to limit evidence to only empirical evidence, while the social sciences rely on both empirical and non-empirical evidence.

For example lets compare the the concept of cosmic inflation which falls under the branch of theoretical physics and cosmology. Inflation uses indirect empirical evidence and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the concept is substantiated.

Lets compare that to applied physics which requires direct empirical evidence to substantiate a concept. Applied physics demands a higher level of empirical evidence because if something needs to be built and used in the physical world, we demand a greater level of confidence.

Ok, so are you saying scientists claim that cosmic inflation is a validated concept, but they make that claim using no observation of reality? Perhaps the truth is that they have put forward a hypothesis and are still validating it?

No, I am not saying there is no empirical evidence. I am saying it could be considered weak evidence just like some try to assert that the empirical evidence of the gospels is weak evidence. When someone presents evidence of a miracle that they observed, it is commonly dismissed as non-empirical because it may not be able to be duplicated in an experimental fashion. So even though theology does use empirical evidence, the evidence is considered weak because it cannot be duplicated like in other branches of science. SO, if non-theists feel it is ok to compare the empirical evidence used by Christian theology with other physical sciences, then the same should occur across the spectrum of science.

I really don't get the point. If theology has valid, verifiable information to share, share it. Don't spend your time trying to show perceived weakness in other fields of endeavor.

I agree, I would much rather discuss the message of the gospel rather than debate whether the empirical evidence that supports the miracles which occurred in the name of Jesus is valid.

No, I stated that geology is not a precise as chemistry. This does not mean geology is lacking empirical evidence or support. Geology is one of the sciences with a great deal of empirical evidence because it focuses strictly on the planet we live on. This makes for strong input data into the scientific method. Compare this input to the data which went into dating the planets in our solar system. We know the approximate age of our solar system as a whole, and the approximate age of the earth. We have very limited data that supports the sun being older than the earth. It is possible that the sun is older, but it is just as possible that the earth is older.

Even though the data is weak, the older age for the sun is accepted based on presumptive evidence not empirical evidence.

I think you are missing some words here. The ages of the sun and planets are not known to an exact number. Science makes no claim that it is. What is claimed is that based on current knowledge and observation, the ages appear to be <fill in whatever the latest values are>. The point you seem to be glossing over is that all science is subject to the scientific method. The last point of that method is to repeat the process until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. Does theology work like that?

Not exactly, because the physical world is far more simple in comparison to the spiritual realm described in the bible, and experienced in the history of humanity.

Btw, google "age of the sun" and see what comes up. Is it a date range or a specified date? Then look and see how this date was chosen. You will invariably end up with the nebular hypothesis which surmises that the sun formed first because solar systems form from the inside out. Our observations of the universe show that it is possible for the planets to have formed first and for large planets like Jupiter to have changes in orbit that moved further away from the sun as it was forming.