Established Member
Hi Everybody ....
I don't know if this is in the right place but here goes ...
Just an observation ....
Science at the present requires us to believe in the existence of up to 96% of the universe as invisible and as yet undiscovered but necessary to prove existing models.
Doesn't this percentage almost then qualify present science as a Faith or Religion, of which the proofs are 100% invisible? (according to science)
Unless of course you believe in love ....
Last edited by Eric12407; 2006-Jan-08 at 01:18 AM.
Order of Kilopi
No.
Theories are based on evidence, and change throughout time to fit newly discovered evidence. This right there seperates it from faith or religion.
That's my introduction into this. I'll post more when I come up with it, and wait for the actual experts to talk.
Order of Kilopi
That's right, Wolf. Eric's error is right here:Dark matter and dark energy are not 100% invisible (like an "intelligent creator" is). Dark matter and dark energy are detectable by observed gravitational effects and observed expansion effects, respectively. Our theories about the cause of these effects may change or evolve, but we can't sweep these observed effects under the rug.Originally Posted by Eric12407
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
I consider Dark Matter to be somewhat of a "fill in the blank". Right now, we don't know enough about it to really be certain what it is, so we call it Dark Matter, and study it further until we actually know what it is.
That's my interpretation, at least.
Banned
I never thought about it that way.
Order of Kilopi
Definitely not.
For starters, science isn't a belief system -- it's a methodology. Concepts stand as valid based upon the merits of supporting evidence. Proofs are for mathematics. Science is the antithesis of faith.
Banned
IT'S ALL ABOUT GRAVITY!
They can clearly see the gravitational effects Of "Something" (Gravity) affecting the clusters of galaxies (Much More than just their own gravity, keeping them from flying apart) and the rotational velocity of stars (Too Fast) in spiral galaxies.
So, what causes gravity...answer...Matter, but they can't see it so, they call it "Dark" Matter. Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, not MACHOS.
Almost the same thing with the expanding universe, but that is considered Anti-Gravity, and is called "Dark" Energy.
It's all a gravity thing!
Established Member
Hello Everybody ..
I guess what I'm getting at is that both descriptions of reality require a faith in the invisible at present which is very interesting ...
Didn't Godel "prove" that we will never be able to explain all aspects of our material reality? It takes a sovereign reality or "metasystem" to accomplish this.
I don't think science and faith are mutually exclusive at all ... just different ways of describing our reality. One begins inwardly .. and investigates materially outwardly .. while the other admits a sovereign reality ...looking inwardly to our world and describing the spiritual foundation of our reality.
Probably at some time as science progresses and our understanding of what faith truly represents grows .. the two will converge and work in harmony together.
Then our civilization will flower ..
Banned
Religion
The link is listed as a dangerous topic.The organized belief in system of moral and spiritual laws, often seperate to the laws of science. Sometimes science and religion can co-exist, but scientific evidence disproves certain religious theory such as Creationism.
Science and Religion together
Some religious theory has been proven by science including the historical events like invasions, revolutions, lineage, etc. that are listed in scripture. These events recounted in books have been corroborated with archeological evidence.
Banned
If you are speaking of faith as "In the Creator", you have much bigger fish to fry, than how science views the universe or evolution!
Established Member
Not quite, but it comes real close sometimes. It's more like overconfidence if you ask me.
Nope! Godel proved that you cannot discover all the truths that can be establised by the axioms in a closed logical system. In other words, thinking about it alone will not do the job. Observation and experimentation are required. The other problem is that you never quite know when you have assumed something without realizing it, but that's outside the scope of Godel's proof.
Don't hold your breath.
Established Member
Hello Spherical ...
I'm no mathematician ... but it seems from what I've read that what I described is one of the ramifications of Godels Theorum ..
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
"Boyer, History of Mathematics
Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced."
Actually, is this not kind of what you said anyway? ... if you consider your "closed logical system" as the universe which must be observed. Obviously if you are in the system such as we are .. it can't be observed properly .. that must take place from somewhere "outside of the system" so to speak.
I think that this in conjunction with Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle shows that a truly accurate description of our reality by us is probably impossible.
I would like to return to the concept of invisible proofs. If in the material world we infer the existence of things by their effects so can we see the effect of the spiritual forces in our world.
And how do you recognize these spiritual forces? Just like science ... you must investigate ... but with both your heart and mind.
Order of Kilopi
As Wolverine already mentioned, science doesn't involve "proofs" whether invisible or not. It does involve objective evidence. People are vision oriented, so we have a habit of distrusting things we literally can't see, but in science there are many things that are well supported by evidence that we will never be able to see.
Unless you can find a way to investigate these "spiritual forces" objectively, showing objective evidence - as opposed to personal belief - then it has nothing to do with science.And how do you recognize these spiritual forces? Just like science ... you must investigate ... but with both your heart and mind.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
The universe is not axiomatic. It just is. Existence exists. Mathematics is the science of measurement, after you boil it down to its essentials. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. The scope of Godel's proof is limited to what you can do inside your head.
Heisenberg's work is applicable to quantum mechanics and that is as far as it goes. Once we are dealing with day-to-day stuff on a human scale the Heisenberg Principle ceases to be applicable.
As for spiritual "forces", that is open to a very wide range of opinions. What is spiritual to me might very well be the most crassly materialistic thing you could ever imagine. What you consider spiritual might strike me as being insane. It depends upon whom you ask.
That is as far as I will go in discussing matters of faith.
Order of Kilopi
Dark matter and Dark energy do not require any faith. Dark matter is the extra gravitational effect seen in all galaxy plus scales, but we cant see what is causing it. It has been discovered, but we just dont understand what it is yet. Science is filled with situations where an effect was seen but not understood. No faith was involved, no belief without proof was involved, just a lack of understanding. We will eventually know what Dark matter is, just today, we do not.
Usually, when faith is used in science, science suffers. This may be a physics tall tale but supposedly when Ernest Rutherford was selecting grad students, he would give them this situation: You want to scatter alpha particles thru gold foil. Where should you place your detectors? Supposedly, he would turn down candidates that would want to place the detectors at a large angle to detect backscattering, because he knew (had faith) that there would be no backscattering.
Ernest Rutherford made his name by proving the existence of the atomic nuclei by alpha particle scattering off of gold foil. I think he got the Nobel Prize for it. He was so shocked by the results of the experiment that he said "It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15 inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you."
There is no faith in science and no science in faith. Faith requres belief without proof and science requires proof for belief.
Banned
So, don't they kind of cross each other out?
Order of Kilopi
I generally agree with your post, but I really don't like to use the "P" word (proof) and the "B" word (belief) when talking about science. I understand that some use the word "proof" to mean overwhelming evidence, but it really isn't appropriate.
In science, acceptance requires objective evidence applied logically. The more evidence the better. But acceptance is provisional, always open to modification or refutation if new evidence points in a different direction. "Belief" and "proof" never enter into it.
Faith is about accepting something without and often despite objective evidence.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
I suppose you could consider a laymen to have faith in science, but that doesn't change the fact that science itself is ultimately based on observational evidence, and continues to seek explanations for that evidence.
Banned
What do you mean by this? I'm a layman, and I think science and religion are intertwined. I know, I'm going to hell for thinking this way.
Established Member
science requires proof for belief.How about dark energy?I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
It hasn't been observed, is not necessary by proven theory.
It creates itself, only in places neccessary to make prediction square with observation, as the ultimate fudge factor.
It violates conservation, and the second law of thermodynamics.
People believe in it, with nothing but FAITH in Big Bang fueling this belief.
Big Bang describes a universe with a fanatastic cataclismic beginning, and from that point time continues forever, at some point burning out, just like every religious explanation of the beginning of time.
As a matter of fact, the Catholic church in 1965 siezed on the big bang as the accepted theory of the origin of the universe[Steve Hawking]
Order of Kilopi
Something certainly has been observed:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/5/7
The objective evidence for the effect (accelerating expansion of the universe) is quite strong. However, the term "dark energy" is something of a placeholder for whatever is causing the effect. We still have a lot to learn there.
Odd statement, since scientists were very shocked when observation was quite different from what they expected.It creates itself, only in places neccessary to make prediction square with observation, as the ultimate fudge factor.
How about explaining that a bit more?It violates conservation, and the second law of thermodynamics.
No, general acceptance of the big bang model is based on evidence and logic. If new evidence shows otherwise, that will change.People believe in it, with nothing but FAITH in Big Bang fueling this belief.
First, Big Bang theory does not describe the beginning of the universe. Second, if any religion created a picture that reasonably matched modern cosmology, I must have missed it.Big Bang describes a universe with a fanatastic cataclismic beginning, and from that point time continues forever, at some point burning out, just like every religious explanation of the beginning of time.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Obviously this was a comment on my sig. My sig is a (hopefully) humorous response to a common ATM argument. Often, when someone presents an ATM idea and has not provided a shread of evidence, they will fall back on a "You can't prove I'm wrong" statement. It is essentially impossible to prove a negative. But so what? There are an infinite number of things that could be possible.science requires proof for belief.
Quote:
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
I haven't provided any evidence for it and never will, but nobody can prove there isn't an elf in my backyard. That's the point. And, no, it isn't a scientific statement, just like the statements it emulates.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
'Often', how about 'constantly'? Frankly, I wish I had a buck for every time I've read or heard someone say something like this!
Order of Kilopi
Okay, very often, then. Make that very very often. Ah well, I was trying to give the benefit of doubt to ATMers I haven't met yet. Meanwhile, my invisible elf gets plenty of work in these discussions and has asked for a raise.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Bad Post-Doc
Wow, me, too. I wouldn't have money problems anymore, and I could afford all those books I want.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
Hi there everybody ...
Thanks again for your responses ...
Okay, what do you think about this ...
What I get from the comments so far is that science is the objective interpretation of invisible forces and their effects and that faith represents the subjective interpretation of invisible forces and their effects. Sounds reasonable ...
Would some of you agree that consciousness is a readily objectively determined reality? I think we can look at each other, observe and say .. yes ... consciousness, self awareness, intelligence exists.
If so ... if consciousness exists and is the effect ... what is the cause? Would that be some invisible force we can all agree on?
Is that Faith or logic?
Established Member
It's "logic" if you keep looking for the cause; it's faith if you just accept that "it is what it is".
Faith accepts that "there's something to it" and usually leaves it at that. Science tries to find out what that something is.
Established Member
Hi Cl ..
Are you saying then we should be investigating the "cause" of the "effect" of consciousness in a logical manner?
Or do we just "accept it as it is" ... without really investigating how consciousness can arise from non consciousness. Sounds like science is again more in tune with faith than it realizes ...
Last edited by Eric12407; 2006-Jan-09 at 02:06 AM.
Order of Kilopi
Well, yes.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. "Consciousness arising from non consciousness"? We are researching into our bodies, our DNA, our brains, our bodies. How is this "faith"?
Established Member
Hi Lonewolf ...
I love that quote by Gibran ... is that from "The Prophet"? I read that a long time ago ....
It really affected me in a positive way ...I'm going to find another copy and refresh my experience.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote