O.k here we go...

[Not half- but whole!]

I think there are a few things floating about in this thread. I feel that science is out to determine fact. Truth is outside the realm of science. Truth IMO is interpretation of fact.

 

Many of the theories in science are conclusions drawn from various forms of observation. Such as mathematical extrapolation, modeling or direct observation. The observation may not be complete so the theory may end up being wrong. Fact will be augmented as new information is discovered. Atomic structure is a good example. The Bohr model resembling our solar system makes sense and works out with basic mathematics. Through further examination we have found that the electron cloud model is more accurate. Fact has changed.

 

This is where science and faith differ. Science is an evolving system. A self correcting process. Faith may change and mutate over time, but through arbitrary methods that are not self-refining.

 

There may be an semantic argument over what provable means. What is proof?

 

1. Does the math work?

2. Does it make sense?

3. Is the hypothesis repeatable?

4. Is there sufficient evidence?

 

These are just a few of the various ideas of what is proof. Some may count, some may not I suppose it depends on what subject you are looking at.

[HydrogenBond]

I think there are three knowledge types instead of just two. We have religion, philosophy and science. The BB theory is sort of a blend being science and philosophy. Based on this subtle distinction the entire scale has seven main degrees of distinction. Going from the first developed to the last, with an example.

 

Religion: Faith in God, etc, doesn't require explanation.

Religious-philosophy: Intelligent design, faith with explanation

Philosophy-religion: Self Help cults, weight watchers, some faith

Philosophy: Existentialism, rational-opinions

Philosophy-science: Holistic, faith healing; some evidence

Science-philosophy: Cosmology, Evolution (retrospective)

Science: Chemistry (future predictable)

 

One can fine tune further between each of these. For example, there is a difference between rational and empirical science, with rational science the last type to evolve. Empirical still has a little philosophy being sort of science-science-philosophy. There is still the possibility of more explanation that could allow rational explanations but for now close is good enough.

[alexander]

Haven't checked this thread in a while :| time to catch up :confused:

Also quite agrivating which is generally why I tend to avoid threads here about ID, the origins of the universe and the like....the fact remains that no theory in this case is proveable one way or the other and very likely will never be...but look how fervently both sides argue that they're right and what they believe is fact.

 

I try to avoid most threads involving religion, politics, and yeah origin of the universe is a very religious thread, anyone remotely religious, starts arguing on the religious side, and everyone on the bing bang starts answering, and then it's not a scientiffic discussion, its a ****ing brawl.... (language used to further accentuate the emotion)

 

First of all, I wouldn't suggest that anything that is untestable is therefore religion. It may just be an idea or a fantasy, or something that exists only in your imagination. That doesn't necessarily make it religious.

 

never said it was, we have agreed that it is theory, whether of scientific or religious matter, it is a theory, theory is not necessarily implying that it is a religion, or of religious root, or even remotely pertains to religion, at that...

 

In science, no one is pushing people to "believe" untestable hypotheses.

Wouldn't say that noone does though.

 

 

To be continued...... gotta run

[REASON]

First of all, I wouldn't suggest that anything that is untestable is therefore religion. It may just be an idea or a fantasy, or something that exists only in your imagination. That doesn't necessarily make it religious.

 

never said it was, we have agreed that it is theory, whether of scientific or religious matter, it is a theory, theory is not necessarily implying that it is a religion, or of religious root, or even remotely pertains to religion, at that...

 

Sorry. My statement was really directed at DD's OP where he said:

 

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but religion? Am I right in my understanding so far? (This is my impression when I hear/read comments like these)

 

I didn't make that very clear. My bad. :confused:

 

 

In science, no one is pushing people to "believe" untestable hypotheses.

Wouldn't say that noone does though.

 

Technically, you're correct. Generally speaking though, legitimate scientists aware of the fact that their hypotheses are untested, don't push them off as believable. Others might. And still others might even misrepresent the position of scientists by implying that they are pushing them off as believable.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

For the sake of preventing further misunderstandings like the above from this point on kindly substitute "bupkiss" for "religion" where found in previous posts. (I knew I'd regret using it but could not and still haven't thought of an appropriate replacement).

 

As for BBT it started from a singularity that basically blew apart becoming what we know as the universe,am I right so far? Funny, but when I blow apart a rock it's still a rock (it's in pieces but it is still what it was before) So (to me and other likeminded souls (I've discussed this with friends on many occasions)) BBT only explains a metamorphisis, a change in form not an origion.

[modest]

For the sake of preventing further misunderstandings like the above from this point on kindly substitute "bupkiss" for "religion" where found in previous posts. (I knew I'd regret using it but could not and still haven't thought of an appropriate replacement).

 

I find that more agreeable. Since neither the particulars of religion nor putting constraints on religion are the focus, "bupkiss" puts the focus where it should be

 

As for BBT it started from a singularity that basically blew apart becoming what we know as the universe,am I right so far?

 

I wouldn't say it blew apart exactly. I guess it depends what you mean by that.

 

It expanded - and expands. Distances between points in the universe are increasing. The geometry is expanding. Since things are getting further apart with time, we can rewind the clock back to a time when everything was touching. This is the singularity or primordial atom.

 

Funny, but when I blow apart a rock it's still a rock (it's in pieces but it is still what it was before)

 

Indeed the universe is still the universe. Some things change with expansion (like how the universe cools down) but it's still the universe it was right after the big bang.

 

So (to me and other likeminded souls (I've discussed this with friends on many occasions)) BBT only explains a metamorphisis, a change in form not an origion.

 

I could not agree more. All the predictions of BBT focus on what we expect if our universe was very small and very dense 13.7 billion years ago. We expect to find background radiation redshifted to 2.7 Kelvin. We expect to find more protons than neutrons and more hydrogen and helium than other elements. Predictions like these and many others come from the idea that the universe started as a singularity about 14 billion years ago.

 

There are no predictions or experiments able to say what happened before that. It is not part of the big bang model. It is, as you say, bupkiss.

 

This disappoints a lot of people. They are used to the idea of cause and effect. They want to know what caused the big bang or what came before. But, "cause and effect" and "before" are ideas that rely on time. If time itself started at the singularity then how could we describe what came before? It seems like an impossible task. Maybe one day we will have the physics needed, but we do not today. And, the big bang theory doesn't try.

 

-modest

[freeztar]

BBT makes no claims to a rock, yet, the math suggests an infinitely massive singularity. The origins are out of science's reach (right now anyways, but maybe forever). Using your rock analogy, physicists are more concerned with the rock particles due to the "explosion" rather than the "explosion" itself.

 

Edit: What Modest said.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

It's nice to see progress made in spite of (.....................?)

I find that more agreeable. Since neither the particulars of religion nor putting constraints on religion are the focus, "bupkiss" puts the focus where it should be

My point exactly (post #22) Thank you for understanding. Also thanks to you and everyone else as well for your patience and input:)

 

BBT makes no claims to a rock, yet, the math suggests an infinitely massive singularity. The origins are out of science's reach (right now anyways, but maybe forever). Using your rock analogy, physicists are more concerned with the rock particles due to the "explosion" rather than the "explosion" itself.

Got ya! This is a problem of poor education and misinformation I think as I (and others) was under the impression that BBT was science's explanation for the origions of the universe. (as apposed to God said here it is and there it was) As I'm sure you now understand, to me the origion of the universe had to come with the birth of the (or before) singularity seeing as I view the big bang as merely a metamorphisis as apposed to a begining.

 

D.d.-borrowed from a conversation with Turtle (hope he don't mind)-All I wanted to know was what makes science......science!...and everything else out there not science.... how do they decide.....who exactly decides such things?...somebody must...there must be some rule, a metre stick, a guidline of some sort....not all sciency things are able to be tested (or even understood for that matter)...how do they decide which of these are science and which are not...does the mere mention of a god (doesn't matter which one theological, imaginary, monetary, etc.) automaticly disqualify an otherwise good theory (hypothesis?) regardless of context? Do they flip a coin? Is it decided by whom has the deepest pockets?

-this truely get's to the heart of what I've been trying to ask and understand:)

[REASON]

D.d.-borrowed from a conversation with Turtle (hope he don't mind)-All I wanted to know was what makes science......science!...and everything else out there not science.... how do they decide.....who exactly decides such things?...somebody must...there must be some rule, a metre stick, a guidline of some sort....not all sciency things are able to be tested (or even understood for that matter)...how do they decide which of these are science and which are not...does the mere mention of a god (doesn't matter which one theological, imaginary, monetary, etc.) automaticly disqualify an otherwise good theory (hypothesis?) regardless of context? Do they flip a coin? Is it decided by whom has the deepest pockets?

 

-this truely get's to the heart of what I've been trying to ask and understand:)

 

For me, it's about understanding that science is a process or a method that is used to try and find answers to questions by gathering some sort of evidence or proof in support of a theory. The goal is to be able to make predictions. The results could be tangible or mathematical.

 

Look around you, virtually every product you see is a product of some level of scientific research. Science has allowed us to develop a very clear understanding of our immediate environment, such as what it's made of, relationships of natural systems, an how we can control it. We can use science to understand patterns of human behavior and examine psychological processes. Science works good with things that a part of the natural world because we are able to find ways to conduct experiments, or develop proofs.

 

It is difficult to apply science to things that are not tangible, subject to natural law, or mathematical. Things that are philosophical such as "who am I," or "where did everything come from," can't really be defined scientifically because there is no imperical evidence to consider or no legitimate test to run. So we are left to speculate and use our imaginations. What often gets mixed up in people is understanding the difference between what is imaginary, and what is scientifically valid, even with the caveat that what is currently valid scientifically, may eventually be rendered invalid. And that's fine, because that's the way the process works.

 

And it's great that we have our imagination. Without it, I don't believe we would be as beautiful of creatures as we are. Our imaginations actually help us to develop the kind of questions that lead to new scientific research, which can not only open our eyes to new information, but improve our understanding of existing theories. I just think it's a good idea for us to be able to distinguish that which can be examined scientifically and shown to be evident, and that which we conjure up in our minds. With this type of clarity, it wouldn't be necessary to be demeaning toward either aspect of our worldview, other than how we individually choose to speculate.

 

But who's willing to admit that their god is imaginary. Know what I mean?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

What often gets mixed up in people is understanding the difference between what is imaginary, and what is scientifically valid,

Do some scientists investigate the "imaginary" or when they decide to investigate something which seems fanciful (time travel or worm holes for instance) does that then become scientific study or physicists daydreaming? This I don't get.

 

Know what I mean?

Yup.

[freeztar]

Do some scientists investigate the "imaginary" or when they decide to investigate something which seems fanciful (time travel or worm holes for instance) does that then become scientific study or physicists daydreaming? This I don't get.

 

If it's an investigation which allows for a testable prediction, then it's science. For example, I could do a scientific study on the presence of ghosts. I make the prediction that if ghosts exist, I can set up a camera facing at an old house for seven days straight. If ghosts exist, I predict that they will be seen by the video camera. I perform the experiment and find that no ghosts were captured on film. I conclude that ghosts do not exist. Someone else might claim that my experiment is not conclusive, so they design a different experiment, in a different location using IR readings.

 

This has been done in real life several times. In every case, conclusive evidence for ghosts can not be found. So, scientists say, ghosts most probably do not exist.

 

It is possible to build scientific experiments to test for fanciful things. But, people who do are usually regarded as psuedoscientists, or "people with an agenda". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

So alot of what I see on the science channel (for example) is actually psuedoscience

Ie. Shows on worm holes, black hole multidimentional travel, etc. (what the heck is that asian fellows name anyway most of his presentations fall into the above catagory). intended merely as entertainment rather than to present fact?

[freeztar]

So alot of what I see on the science channel (for example) is actually psuedoscience

Ie. Shows on worm holes, black hole multidimentional travel, etc. (what the heck is that asian fellows name anyway most of his presentations fall into the above catagory). intended merely as entertainment rather than to present fact?

 

I'd call that speculation. But it's important to note that things such as wormholes are suggested by the math of theories such as GR. Look here:

 

In physics, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that is basically a 'shortcut' through space and time. A wormhole has at least two mouths which are connected to a single throat or tube. If the wormhole is traversable, matter can 'travel' from one mouth to the other by passing through the throat. While there is no observational evidence for wormholes, spacetimes containing wormholes are known to be valid solutions in general relativity.

 

So while no observable proof has been found for either ghosts or wormholes, science has no reason to believe in ghosts whereas wormholes are at least suggested from solutions to accepted equations.

[REASON]

I'd call that speculation. But it's important to note that things such as wormholes are suggested by the math of theories such as GR. Look here:

 

So while no observable proof has been found for either ghosts or wormholes, science has no reason to believe in ghosts whereas wormholes are at least suggested from solutions to accepted equations.

 

These are some good examples you provided freezer.

 

And this is what I meant when I said, "The results could be tangible or mathematical." This is an amazing thing about mathematics. It is possible to develop Mathematical Proofs to explain theories where there is no tangible or empirical evidence.

[modest]

(what the heck is that asian fellows name anyway most of his presentations fall into the above catagory).

 

You probably are looking for Dr. Michio Kaku.

 

He's a physicist and 'futurist' specializing in string theory (I think).

 

-modest... I need to get one of his books

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

It is possible to develop Mathematical Proofs to explain theories where there is no tangible or empirical evidence.

So while no observable proof has been found for either ghosts or wormholes, science has no reason to believe in ghosts whereas wormholes are at least suggested from solutions to accepted equations.

So if the math suggests it then science considers it likely?

 

We're getting back into that murky area again.

[freeztar]

So if the math suggests it then science considers it likely?

 

Not always...

Remember, math is a tool of science.

 

If the math suggests it and it is capable of being tested, then yes, scientists are likely to consider it likely, until evidence is presented that is contrary.

 

The murkiness that you speak of is nonetheless very real. Theories such as String Theory create a divide between those that feel it is legitimate science, and those who do not. Most of String Theory is based upon mathematics, with no practical way to test the various theories. Some people say that this does not qualify String Theory as science. Others proclaim that it is a viable scientific hypothesis until it is disproven.