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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 67 by KingandPriest]

What you are missing in the article I posted(It is a serial so the follow up you were looking for likely came in subsequent issues) is various churches make claims of healing like the faith water or laying of hands etc. If you believed this works why would you keep taking the treatments? HIV treatments are not cheap if all you had to do was pay 40R for a bottle of water instead of the more expensive HIV treatments what would you do?

There is no proof that any actual healing is taking place, you can't even give a single documented case. Just testimonials from various churches, who don't back up their claims. Do we even know what happened to the people in the videos? Are they even alive?

[DanieltheDragon]

TB Joshua one of the claimed faith healers appears to be no better and perhaps worse than Greg Popovich. Now there are stories being circulated where he has paid people to fake being sick. A former minister for the church has also come out against him describing some brutal behavior.
http://dailypost.ng/2016/11/21/t-b-josh ... ges-video/


TB Joshua has made millions off of his church, one wonders what his motivations really are...

[KingandPriest]

TB Joshua one of the claimed faith healers appears to be no better and perhaps worse than Greg Popovich. Now there are stories being circulated where he has paid people to fake being sick. A former minister for the church has also come out against him describing some brutal behavior.
http://dailypost.ng/2016/11/21/t-b-josh ... ges-video/


TB Joshua has made millions off of his church, one wonders what his motivations really are...

As pointed out to me via PM, this conversation belongs more in the C&A section of this forum. I will respond in the thread already in progress here: ref:Bible is sufficient evidence of God

[TheBeardedDude]

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?

Well 1) that isn't what science is and 2) evidence is admissible depending on what it is evidence of.

So, what does "Character evidence" provide evidence of? It doesn't provide evidence of an objective truth about the universe. It is evidence of someone's opinion of someone's character. Drawing conclusions beyond that is tenuous at best.

A lot of the other lines of "evidence" you list are the same way.
Testimonial evidence: This would be the same as character evidence actually. So this is a duplicate on your list. But this would be evidence of someone's opinion not evidence of a verifiable and objective fact

Statistical / Mathematical evidence: Science uses this all the time

Presumptive evidence: one generates hypotheses from observations (which would be a better way of saying "presumptive evidence" because what you really mean is that someone saw something and made a guess as to what may have occurred. Observations should be testable)

Hearsay evidence: Ergo, rumors. No, rumors aren't going to be used as evidence because rumors are often unverifiable or highly biased. Rumors can be evaluated and tested but they are also not objective and verifiable evidence of truth. They are evidence of what someone believes is true. That is an important distinction.

Documentation evidence: As long as there are ways of validating the authenticity of the documents, it might be good evidence. Even better if there are other contemporary documents that support it. But simply having a document that makes extraordinary claims isn't evidence that the document provides objective evidence about something that actually happened. It must first be assumed to be evidence that someone believes the documented events or people (or whatever) were real. That does not mean that is true, it just means the person documenting it believed it. If the source is credible, that lends some credibility to the document

Demonstrative evidence: No idea what you even mean here. Do you mean empirical? As in, we can replicate the conditions in a lab and empirically derive the relationships?

Circumstantial evidence: This too is admissible in science but it is often the case that if a causal connection can't be shown then it won't be taken seriously. Correlation does not equal causation, so the reliability of circumstantial evidence will be in question without corroborating evidence

Character evidence: Already discussed this duplicate

Analogical evidence: Analogies are not evidence. They are opinions used to express an idea

Anecdotal evidence: this is the same as hearsay, another duplicate

Physical evidence: Yes, but physical means more than just solid evidence. Physical evidence are direct measures of the universe. They are measurements of the properties of matter or energy.

Digital evidence: I don't know what digital evidence is. Do you mean things like computer models? Things like computer models aren't "evidence" but are simulations used to test specific hypotheses and the models are based on our understanding of reality. So when we do climate models for instance, they are based on our knowledge of the physics of climates.

Direct evidence: This isn't an exclusive category. Direct evidence would necessarily be physical evidence (another duplicate)

Exculpatory evidence: This is also not an exclusive category. This is category of yours would mean that it is evidence with an assumed causal connection to a conclusion. So this is the same as an observation and preliminary conclusion, making it a duplicate with your "presumptive evidence."

Forensic evidence: Once again, this is not an exclusive type. Forensic evidence can be physical or circumstantial, etc.


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) Science is two things: First, it is a method of inquiry that utilizes the scientific method and secondly, it is the collective body of knowledge attained via the scientific method

2) There are many disciplines of sciences and it doesn't make sense to ask if they are equal because there is no objective standard by which to measure them against.

3) The scientific method.

4) Yes, that is what makes science a rigorous method of inquiry regardless of what it studies. The fact that the evidence changes depending on what you are studying and the fact that the ability to take measurements is limited by our technology or other factors, doesn't mean that the sciences aren't based on the same principles or standards of verifiable and falsifiable evidences.

[KingandPriest]

Well 1) that isn't what science is and 2) evidence is admissible depending on what it is evidence of.
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) Science is two things: First, it is a method of inquiry that utilizes the scientific method and secondly, it is the collective body of knowledge attained via the scientific method

2) There are many disciplines of sciences and it doesn't make sense to ask if they are equal because there is no objective standard by which to measure them against.

3) The scientific method.

4) Yes, that is what makes science a rigorous method of inquiry regardless of what it studies. The fact that the evidence changes depending on what you are studying and the fact that the ability to take measurements is limited by our technology or other factors, doesn't mean that the sciences aren't based on the same principles or standards of verifiable and falsifiable evidences.

1) Is science only limited to the natural and physical sciences? Can one use this method of inquiry to investigate things like social behavior, economics, human psychology?

I only ask because some people say yes, while others say no.

2) I agree which is why I discuss science as a whole. Some presume science to only refer to those which strictly focus on the natural world like chemistry, physics, biology etc. If science truly applies to all bodies of investigative knowledge that utilizes the scientific method, then such a limitation of what should be called science verses "not real science" should be avoided.

3) Thank you for your answer.

4) I agree. Some have chosen to argue that unless one type of specific evidence is provided, then a claim cannot be validated. The evidence presented should align with the field being studied.

So, what does "Character evidence" provide evidence of? It doesn't provide evidence of an objective truth about the universe. It is evidence of someone's opinion of someone's character. Drawing conclusions beyond that is tenuous at best.

A lot of the other lines of "evidence" you list are the same way.
Testimonial evidence: This would be the same as character evidence actually. So this is a duplicate on your list. But this would be evidence of someone's opinion not evidence of a verifiable and objective fact

Statistical / Mathematical evidence: Science uses this all the time

Presumptive evidence: one generates hypotheses from observations (which would be a better way of saying "presumptive evidence" because what you really mean is that someone saw something and made a guess as to what may have occurred. Observations should be testable)

Hearsay evidence: Ergo, rumors. No, rumors aren't going to be used as evidence because rumors are often unverifiable or highly biased. Rumors can be evaluated and tested but they are also not objective and verifiable evidence of truth. They are evidence of what someone believes is true. That is an important distinction.

Documentation evidence: As long as there are ways of validating the authenticity of the documents, it might be good evidence. Even better if there are other contemporary documents that support it. But simply having a document that makes extraordinary claims isn't evidence that the document provides objective evidence about something that actually happened. It must first be assumed to be evidence that someone believes the documented events or people (or whatever) were real. That does not mean that is true, it just means the person documenting it believed it. If the source is credible, that lends some credibility to the document

Demonstrative evidence: No idea what you even mean here. Do you mean empirical? As in, we can replicate the conditions in a lab and empirically derive the relationships?

Circumstantial evidence: This too is admissible in science but it is often the case that if a causal connection can't be shown then it won't be taken seriously. Correlation does not equal causation, so the reliability of circumstantial evidence will be in question without corroborating evidence

Character evidence: Already discussed this duplicate

Analogical evidence: Analogies are not evidence. They are opinions used to express an idea

Anecdotal evidence: this is the same as hearsay, another duplicate

Physical evidence: Yes, but physical means more than just solid evidence. Physical evidence are direct measures of the universe. They are measurements of the properties of matter or energy.

Digital evidence: I don't know what digital evidence is. Do you mean things like computer models? Things like computer models aren't "evidence" but are simulations used to test specific hypotheses and the models are based on our understanding of reality. So when we do climate models for instance, they are based on our knowledge of the physics of climates.

Direct evidence: This isn't an exclusive category. Direct evidence would necessarily be physical evidence (another duplicate)

Exculpatory evidence: This is also not an exclusive category. This is category of yours would mean that it is evidence with an assumed causal connection to a conclusion. So this is the same as an observation and preliminary conclusion, making it a duplicate with your "presumptive evidence."

Forensic evidence: Once again, this is not an exclusive type. Forensic evidence can be physical or circumstantial, etc.

Thank you for your time and analysis of each of the various types of evidences one can provide.

What type of evidence does science use to support various theories?

Is a scientist limited only to physical empirical evidence or can presumptive evidence be used to corroborate a theory?

Can one use a combination of indirect physical evidence, along with statistical/mathematical evidence, and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion?

If this is allowed in such a rigorous discipline that is widely accepted as the best available today, why cant a person use the same combination of evidence to support one's faith?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 19 by KingandPriest]

We meaning Christians. Sorry, I should have stated We Christians know, and not just include all of humanity

Feeling something is true and believing something is true is still different then knowing something is true. The only evidence that "God" created everything is in a storybook. On what basis do we know this storybook is true?

Aye. When I read KnP's response there, my thought-line ran something like this "So KnP has this thread here talking about science, what is science, what counts as science etc...then in a comment he says 'We know God exists' and when pressed on it, he says sorry my bad, Christians know God exists...so let me get this straight KnP....you're talking about science, and what counts as science, and what are facts and things we know, and for some reason, 'God exists' is a fact, a scientific fact known only to Christians, non-Christians simply cannot grasp it."
If this is KnP's stance, then I would label this 'fact' of 'God exists' as not being a fact at all, if one has to be a believer in a specific religion to 'know' it.

[marco]

Can one use a combination of indirect physical evidence, along with statistical/mathematical evidence, and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion?

If this is allowed in such a rigorous discipline that is widely accepted as the best available today, why cant a person use the same combination of evidence to support one's faith?

One can use any evidence to support one's faith, but it remains inconclusive. Einstein's results required ultimate verification, and that still continues; theoretical physicists can reach conclusions but they must have verification in some way.

Attempting to apply scientific method to religious ideas is futile. The rigorous theoretical side, built on mathematics, is absent. Instead of an Einstein outlining a theory we have an assortment of men, often steeped in superstition. Faith is conviction without proof. For many, that suffices.

[KingandPriest]

Can one use a combination of indirect physical evidence, along with statistical/mathematical evidence, and presumptive evidence to arrive at a conclusion?

If this is allowed in such a rigorous discipline that is widely accepted as the best available today, why cant a person use the same combination of evidence to support one's faith?

One can use any evidence to support one's faith, but it remains inconclusive. Einstein's results required ultimate verification, and that still continues; theoretical physicists can reach conclusions but they must have verification in some way.

Attempting to apply scientific method to religious ideas is futile. The rigorous theoretical side, built on mathematics, is absent. Instead of an Einstein outlining a theory we have an assortment of men, often steeped in superstition. Faith is conviction without proof. For many, that suffices.

I agree that attempting to apply the scientific method to the bible is futile, but over and over again many non-theist continue to demand the bible comply with the scientific method as if it is limited to only the physical world.

I mean, how would a person even begin to test the claim of being born again as Jesus described to Nicodemus in John 3.

John 3:1-21

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.�

3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. �

4“How can someone be born when they are old?� Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!�

5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.�

9“How can this be?� Nicodemus asked.

10“You are Israel’s teacher,� said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.�

16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

But yet I am sure someone will ask once again for empirical evidence of a person who is born again which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 77 by KingandPriest]

I agree that attempting to apply the scientific method to the bible is futile, but over and over again many non-theist continue to demand the bible comply with the scientific method as if it is limited to only the physical world.

Non theists point out that the bible stories don't comport with what science has taught us about the natural world. Hence the stories stretch credulity and garner skepticism. Non theists don't typically demand the bible comply with the scientific method. That would seem silly.

Because the bible stretches credulity and garners skepticism, convincing someone it's true requires more than your word.


For example if I told you I had water today, it would be perfectly plausible to trust this statement. If I told you I hunted unicorns and had skewered leprechauns for lunch it would not be rational to trust that statement.

[agnosticatheist]

Non theists point out that the bible stories don't comport with what science has taught us about the natural world. Hence the stories stretch credulity and garner skepticism. Non theists don't typically demand the bible comply with the scientific method. That would seem silly.

According to some Christians, the Bible is God's written revelation to us. Some of those Christians would probably also claim that God does not lie to us. If the Bible says X is the case, but science says Y is actually the case, then *if* you trust what science says, then the Bible contains false information. If the Bible is God's written revelation to us, then that means God gave us false information, which means God lied to us...

It's another matter if the Bible says something that science has not ruled out. If the Bible says X is the case and science has not ruled out X, then you can't rule X out as being a possibility.

Because the bible stretches credulity and garners skepticism, convincing someone it's true requires more than your word.

What is your standard and/or criteria for determining what does and what does not stretch credulity? It's probably arbitrary, isn't it?

For example if I told you I had water today, it would be perfectly plausible to trust this statement. If I told you I hunted unicorns and had skewered leprechauns for lunch it would not be rational to trust that statement.

I don't think you can pick and choose which claims to accept and which claims to doubt. Either you accept all of them, or you doubt all of them. Your standard for deciding what is normal and plausible depends on your experiences. People throughout history have been skeptical of things that turned out to be true, and the reason that they were skeptical is because their experiences told them what turned out to be true was implausible.

I think part of the whole Christian deal is that you have to have faith without proof. If you don't believe the claims without proof, then you are not having faith, and you will not be saved. And it will be your fault that you go to Hell.

Just because you haven't seen Jesus walk on water doesn't mean he isn't real.

What happens if Jesus actually turns out to be real? What are you going to do then? You might not find out he is real until after you die, but at that point, it will be too late. You should have believed without proof when you still had the chance.

It's almost like gambling.

If you don't believe Jesus is real and it turns out he isn't real, nothing bad happens to you after you die.

If you don't believe Jesus is real and it turns out he is real, you go to Hell.

If you believe Jesus is real and it turns out he isn't real, nothing bad happens to you after you die.

If you believe Jesus is real and it turns out he is real, nothing bad happens to you after you die.

So, the safe approach is to believe that he is real. If you believe he is real, regardless of whether it turns out he is real or not, nothing bad happens to you after you die. If you don't believe he is real, and it turns out he is real, then you are toast after you die.

What if you were one of those Imperial Japanese soldiers who stayed isolated on an island for 30 years, then in the 70s was discovered? I try to tell you about the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan, and you are going to be skeptical of my claim. On the other hand, if you come to me today and tell me a nuclear missile was fired at a Middle Eastern country this morning, I wouldn't necessarily have a reason to doubt you, because in my experience, that is credulous.

We need a standard that can be applied to all people, regardless of individual experience. That standard is: if you wonder if a possibility is actually the case or not, if a person's claim is true or false, etc, doubt the truth value of the possibility or claim. Even in matters of practical necessity, you can still doubt the claim, but act as if the claim is true, or act as if the claim is false. For example, the sheriff's department stops at your beach house and tells you a tidal wave is headed your way; you can intellectually doubt their claim, but it is in your interest as a goal-pursuing organism (with the goal of your survival being one of the goals you pursue...) to act is if their claim is true and get the heck away from the coast!

I find myself doubting stuff all the time, and I think it's because I am a deeper thinker and am more into epistemology than most people, so by this standard, I would doubt more than the average person, but only because I think more often than the average person about whether an everyday claim ("I went to the gas station this morning to refill my car's gas tank") is true or not. Did the Earth actually progress in real time from 50 million years ago to the present moment, or was it created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of having progressed through 50 million years in time, and with me having memories from 2005, 2006, etc? I don't know either way. Is my family real or are they "bots" and I'm in a full immersion simulation? I don't know either way.