Science at work

[Swammerdami]

Interesting item in today's news feed. A group of Flat Earthers wanted to debunk the lies about a "Midnight Sun" and flew to a special resort not far from the South Pole. They were surprised to see the Sun circumnavigate the horizon without ever setting.

One of them said he had no explanation for this weirdness but it didn't shake his confidence that the Earth was flat. After all, this observation was "just one data point."

Gullible me wouldn't have bothered with the junket to the South Pole: I'm old enough to have learned about "the midnight sun" in the 1960 John Wayne movie North to Alaska. (But to be fair, even in 1960 some of the smarter Americans already knew that Hollywood was overrun by Marxo-Islamist terrorists, Antifa jihadists and other Jesus haters.)

 

[Learner]

Back to a past discussion. Both religion and science are based in faith, therefore religion is as valid as science.

The word faith has context. I have faith my wife is not cheating. I have faith my wayward son will turn his life around. I have faith that based on words in a 2000 years old document somebody named Jesus was executed and rose from the dead.

Faith as a belief in something intangible not subject to validation. No hard evidence that can be independently tested.

When I get on a jet I have a faith that unless smugness breaks it is nit gluing to just fall out of the sky. In this case the word faith is synonymous with trust. A trust based in observation. In my case supported by knowledge of theory of flight.Faith in science is a trust based on a process going back centuries that produces tangible independently verifiable results. Like radio and lasers.Religious faith is not subject to material repeatable validation, if it were it would not be faith it would be science.

Though I agree with the above that states,'the faith in science, is the process that produces results which has history of experience going back centuries'.

Religious faith' (Christianity in this case) has an experience which goes back a lot further. A long 'trusted process' based on a different substance matter, i.e. the instant recognition and understanding of human emotions e.g. what are the results produced from human compassion? etc. & etc.

Trying to "equate" and compare the 'religious faith' which is based on all the aspects of our 'morality' and our actions that is influenced by them - to the 'scientific process' that deals with material matter and the characteristics of nature, that doesn't care either way what morality is, or does - unfortunately, makes a flawed argument.

So, stating what should be obvious...
...they are different types of faiths (science and religion as you say) based conceptually on two different substance material concepts.

 

[steve_bank]

Learner

The Koran I read given to me by a Muslim I knew dates form, the early 1900s. Today we would call the transl;at6or a moderate Muslim.

In his commentary he said there is no conflict between religion and science, they deal with different things.

In modern business parlance religion and science have different deliverables.

Science delivers physically tangible results. Independently test6able experiments and theories. Science and ttechnolopgy are based on a set of units with numerical quantification that are unambiguous and not subject to interpretation, Systems International,

Religion delivers intangibles, things not scientifically and mathematically quantifiable. There are intangible deliverables in business.

Religion delivers an identity, community, and ways of living. Quality of life. Philosophy with a god.

Science and religion conflict when for example science refutes a claim of Young Earth Creationism. Or that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Or that there was one original Adam and Eve that god created refuted by archeology and genetics and Theory Of Evolution.

There is no reconciliation on these issues with biblical literalists and science.

 

[steve_bank]

Sometimes I wonder how some people manage to actually function and communicate in the real world.

Religious faith is one aspect of faith, and that is why it is loaded. We hear 'I have religio0us faith' or 'my faith says 'all the time inn the media.

I word say I have faith in the laws that govern electric circuits without any worries. I have faith that they are not going to just stop working. A faith based in theoretical understanding and 30 years of using theory.

To get philosophical can I prove Ohm's Law will never stop working? No I can not.

If using the word faith makes you uncomfortable because it is associated with religion, that is 'your cross to bear' so to speak.

Ruh Roh I used a religious metaphor, I'm in trouble now.

With the behaviour of electricity, again that is trust not faith.
As a hypothetical of the difference:
Two politicians, John and James. John has made a hundred promises in the past, and kept every one of them. When he makes a new promise, I trust that he will keep it. James is a politician that I like, but he has not has a prior opportunity to make or keep any promises. He makes a promise, I have faith that he will keep it, but can't have trust as he has no record that I can judge him on.

Semantics, which is where philosophy threads often end up.

The BB Theory is considered good science, but it is not experiment6aly testable. That would require creating a BB and making measurements for a long time.

Newtonian merchants eventually failed to explain observation, superseded by quantum and relativistic mechanics.

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

Wahtecver term you choose to use, faith or trust, really does not matter. Theories work regardless.

For the religious and philosophers terms can matter.

In the long history of philosophy terms change meaning. Concurrent philosophic groups can have efferent meanings for the same term.

All science is conditional, just look at history. Do I believe a jet will just stop flying? Nope. I call it a faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

the genesis of dark matter came from galactic rotation curves in disagreement with Newtonian gravity not from “old images” and cosmology.

 

[DBT]

Back to a past discussion. Both religion and science are based in faith, therefore religion is as valid as science.

The word faith has context. I have faith my wife is not cheating. I have faith my wayward son will turn his life around. I have faith that based on words in a 2000 years old document somebody named Jesus was executed and rose from the dead.

Faith as a belief in something intangible not subject to validation. No hard evidence that can be independently tested.

When I get on a jet I have a faith that unless smugness breaks it is nit gluing to just fall out of the sky. In this case the word faith is synonymous with trust. A trust based in observation. In my case supported by knowledge of theory of flight.Faith in science is a trust based on a process going back centuries that produces tangible independently verifiable results. Like radio and lasers.Religious faith is not subject to material repeatable validation, if it were it would not be faith it would be science.

Though I agree with the above that states,'the faith in science, is the process that produces results which has history of experience going back centuries'.

Religious faith' (Christianity in this case) has an experience which goes back a lot further. A long 'trusted process' based on a different substance matter, i.e. the instant recognition and understanding of human emotions e.g. what are the results produced from human compassion? etc. & etc.

Trying to "equate" and compare the 'religious faith' which is based on all the aspects of our 'morality' and our actions that is influenced by them - to the 'scientific process' that deals with material matter and the characteristics of nature, that doesn't care either way what morality is, or does - unfortunately, makes a flawed argument.

So, stating what should be obvious...
...they are different types of faiths (science and religion as you say) based conceptually on two different substance material concepts.

We have a word - faith - that is commonly used in reference to different things, and it is this ambiguity that may lead to equivocation. Sometimes deliberate.

 

[Bearded One]

Faith can go beyond simply believing without evidence. Religious faith often requires believing even with contradictory evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

the genesis of dark matter came from galactic rotation curves in disagreement with Newtonian gravity not from “old images” and cosmology.

I will have to get an email off to NOVA to correct their video.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

the genesis of dark matter came from galactic rotation curves in disagreement with Newtonian gravity not from “old images” and cosmology.

I will have to get an email off to NOVA to correct their video.

Maybe you should. In the meantime, look into the works of Vera Rubin and Fritz Zwicky.

I don’t know what NOVA video you refer to. I didn’t learn astronomy from NOVA videos.

 

[unapologetic]

Your OP falsely suggests science and religion are equal disciplines. They are not.
Science is a tool for learning truth about things.
Religion is a tool to enforce conformity, and suppress questioning of authority.
This is why the founders put limits on religion, while Fuhrer Rump embraces it.

Religious faith is not subject to material repeatable validation, if it were it would not be faith it would be science.

 

[steve_bank]

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

the genesis of dark matter came from galactic rotation curves in disagreement with Newtonian gravity not from “old images” and cosmology.

I will have to get an email off to NOVA to correct their video.

Maybe you should. In the meantime, look into the works of Vera Rubin and Fritz Zwicky.

I don’t know what NOVA video you refer to. I didn’t learn astronomy from NOVA videos.

Devotees of pop science can be just as ideological and cult like as the religious.

To me science was always a tool to accomplish something.

Science shows with with goofy sound tracks and the narration with gravitas are cult like. Phantasmagorical.

 

[Politesse]

Science minded atheists complain about religions getting tax breaks. Being absolutely for total separation of church and state I happen to agree with them on that, but how hypocritical is it of them when the majority of funding for science comes from taxpayers. And what are they doing with your money?

Not to mention chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, eugenics, gain of function; they've poisoned our air, water, land, food, seeds, children and minds.

Investing in scientific research results in:

- the production of knowledge that is then made available to those same taxpayers through public education, museums, libraries, and media programs.
- allowing or the development of new technologies that advance the national interest, create jobs that citizens can work, extend lives, and generally improve the everyday lives of taxpayers.
- cultivating sociological expertise that generally makes policy more contextually appropriate, government agencies more efficient, and social interventions more effective.

I don't actually oppose religious organizations getting "tax breaks", provided they resemble the same kinds of privileges extended to other non-profit and humanitarian organizations, but to pretend that research grants into real avenues of inquiry are the same thing as voiding property tax for a church is fundamentally disingenuous.

And by the way, there's no rule that scientific research cannot be carried out by religious people as well.

 

[unapologetic]

Science shows with with goofy sound tracks and the narration with gravitas are cult like. Phantasmagorical.

Fair enough. There is too much pseudo-science around. But I have never spoken with The Poop. So most of what I hear from religious sheeple (including RIS) is pseudo-religion. You need a good BS filter. And science fans do not count pointing out the BS as sacrilege.

 

[DBT]

Science seeks understanding, faith provides tailored answers.

 

[Politesse]

Institutionalized religion tends to provide tailored answers, for those who are seeking them. For those who seek true understanding, all major traditions are complex enough for there to be room for that inquiry, and to embrace all means of study that might reach it. For a person who is brave and clever enough to take the cunning path that leads to true gnosis, there is seldom any reason to hate science; it's political and economic interest that really set common people against science education, not these faiths themselves.

Note that some religions* have a mythology that contradicts the scientific story of evolution and some** do not, yet nearly all fundamentalist movements regardless of faith tradition reject evolution. Why? Because that rejection is really about power, authority, and cult control, not whatever ancient book. If just a book were the problem, religious leaders could easily talk those problems away, as indeed they routinely do with the more embarassing corners and contradictions of their various holy texts. What they can't talk away is the conflicting authority of science; their power over others is always going to be impaired when scientists are seen as making more reliable pronouncements about the natural world than they can. So, they must find a way to poison the well, instead. If not indeed burning the bucket and filling the well with sand. And so, they do.

*the Abrahamic faiths, obviously, and most indigenous traditions
**such as Buddhism, Taoism, Gnosticism

 

[EricH]

Sometimes I wonder how some people manage to actually function and communicate in the real world.

Religious faith is one aspect of faith, and that is why it is loaded. We hear 'I have religio0us faith' or 'my faith says 'all the time inn the media.

I word say I have faith in the laws that govern electric circuits without any worries. I have faith that they are not going to just stop working. A faith based in theoretical understanding and 30 years of using theory.

To get philosophical can I prove Ohm's Law will never stop working? No I can not.

If using the word faith makes you uncomfortable because it is associated with religion, that is 'your cross to bear' so to speak.

Ruh Roh I used a religious metaphor, I'm in trouble now.

With the behaviour of electricity, again that is trust not faith.
As a hypothetical of the difference:
Two politicians, John and James. John has made a hundred promises in the past, and kept every one of them. When he makes a new promise, I trust that he will keep it. James is a politician that I like, but he has not has a prior opportunity to make or keep any promises. He makes a promise, I have faith that he will keep it, but can't have trust as he has no record that I can judge him on.

Semantics, which is where philosophy threads often end up.

The BB Theory is considered good science, but it is not experiment6aly testable. That would require creating a BB and making measurements for a long time.

You don't have to create a Big Bang in order to study it. Just as you don't have to create a star in order to understand how nuclear fusion, the reactions occurring within the core of the star, works. We know that our universe is expanding because we have innumerable observations telling us it is. The model established using these observations is what is known as Big Bang Theory, and to deny the validity of the model implies a lack of understanding of the science behind it. I am not a physicist, just a casual reader of books, and even I understand this.

Newtonian merchants eventually failed to explain observation, superseded by quantum and relativistic mechanics.

Somebody noticed a discrepancy in old images between astronomical observation and cosmology. The genesis of dark matter to explain it.

Yes. That is how science works. Our observations tell us that there is invisible matter that interacts gravitationally with visible matter, and this leads to the hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy to explain our observations. That dark matter exists is indisputable.

All science is conditional, just look at history. Do I believe a jet will just stop flying? Nope. I call it a faith.

No, we call it trust. As someone who frequently flies on jet powered airplanes, I know that within the US, and in most developed nations, the government has created a set of standards for inspection and maintenance that minimizes the possibility of catastrophic failures that can bring an airplane down. And that in order to fly, airplane operators are required to implement these procedures as part of their operations. We trust that jets won't crash because we know that these standards are being followed. This is different from faith, which implies belief without any evidence to support said beliefs.

 

[Elixir]

When an hypothesis e.g. the Big Bang, is highly explanatory and remains un-falsified, it can be provisionally accepted as an operational “theory” even though it has limited predictive power. There is zero trust or faith involved. The first thing that comes along that is more predictive and explanatory than BB theory, will quickly supplant it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science minded atheists complain about religions getting tax breaks. Being absolutely for total separation of church and state I happen to agree with...

As a reminder, when this was being considered in the late 18th Century, they were looking at protecting some groups of Christians from other groups of Christians. Depends on the time of day when any particular Christian feels with one with the other Christians today.

...but how hypocritical is it of them when the majority of funding for science comes from taxpayers. And what are they doing with your money?

Landing probes on Mars, exploring the Jupiter/moons and Saturn/moons, launching a massive telescope that is peering billions of years into the past with unprecedented quality, developing treatments and cures for disease, the Internet...

Any of these things you find particularly objectionable? Or are you looking at cherry picking stuff you don't understand.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Science minded atheists complain about religions getting tax breaks. Being absolutely for total separation of church and state I happen to agree with...

As a reminder, when this was being considered in the late 18th Century, they were looking at protecting some groups of Christians from other groups of Christians. Depends on the time of day when any particular Christian feels with one with the other Christians today.

...but how hypocritical is it of them when the majority of funding for science comes from taxpayers. And what are they doing with your money?

Landing probes on Mars, exploring the Jupiter/moons and Saturn/moons, launching a massive telescope that is peering billions of years into the past with unprecedented quality, developing treatments and cures for disease, the Internet...

Any of these things you find particularly objectionable? Or are you looking at cherry picking stuff you don't understand.

Further, how is it hypocritical for the government to support something written into the Constitution and not support something not written into the Constitution?

If there were an amendment that called for separation of science and state then it would be hypocritical to support science with the state while separating church from state.

This is an extremely odd argument, if one dares call it even that...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is clearly an attempt to label science as a "religion". Which is ridiculous. Science gave us computers we can fit in our pocket, cures to disease, extra toasty cheez-its... stuff that betters our standard of living. THe use of prayer for medical, technological, and dietary gains has proven ineffective.