|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: My fellow citizens scare me... (2/25/2009 5:32:44 AM)
|
This whole thread has degraded into retardation.
It's really simple, here, Faith is treating the unprovable as fact. Fact is having reproducible evidence, that can be repeated and confirmed given the methodology used and the same input factors, and that is the basis of science.
Morality is based on Faith, Laws are based on Faith. Most things are based on faith. However, The only Faith trully required by science is that reproduced results from different scientists in different locations using standard methods, will reduce the human factor of interpretation and bias, to eventually result in what could be called a fact.
Now, bad "scientists" may fudge crap, or use partial results as proof, but they would not be practicing "Science". The same as someone that lied about belief in a God, would not truly be religious, even if they said they were.
It's the ability to reproduce the results, that make science different. Religion truly is based around unreproducible individual experiences, and feelings. There is little similarity. If Science were anything nearly at all equivalent to Religion. It would take the bible start on page one, and seek to confirm the suppositions with external measurements, and produce a reproducible method that anyone could do that would show a consistent result that confirms it . Religion does not do that it says god created the Earth in 7 days(at least the most common in the US), there is zero evidence of this, zero proof, it is complete faith treated as fact by some.
If one wants to nitpick, they would be technically correct that every single action or thing we see, hear, taste or feel is based on the belief our senses are functioning, but science doesn't even trust one persons belief in their senses, it demands before something can be given credence that 5, 10, 100, a 1000 independent scientists reproduce the result, using the same methodology.
To say science is based on belief in anything more than the most abstract way is the same as saying, A single indivuals feeling is the same as an observation taken with thoroughly tested and calibrated equipment, by several different scientists some not expecting to get the stated result from around the world all showing the same results. On one hand you have the indiviudal expressing the unprovable, without any effort to prove it, on the other hand you have a large group of people that in order for it to stand as fact as long as religion has stood, would have to repeat the experiment, and come to the same result dozens if not hundreds of times.
Some will point out that science has been wrong. DUH, it's built to eliminate the bad conclusions with time. For Example if global warming is indeed a myth, it will not stand, for 2000 years, because it is being constantly examined and reexamined, and most scientist don't say global warming and its prdicted effect and severity are facts, but rather the limited models we have indicate the probability of correctness. So, From a Scientific perspective Global Warmings future is not treated as fact but as probability, there may be people that treat it as such, but it technically isn't a fact, the models aren't accurate enough for that to be laid down as fact.
It seems a common theme on these forums to take anyones chosen title as a fact. If a person says they are religious and admits to not believing in god, then they are not religious despite what they say. If a scientist states something as fact, when the evidence only points to probability they aren't being scientific, despite what they say.
People do tend to grasp for titles they don't deserve.
|
|
|
|
