All scientific facts are there? The canon is closed? Only modifications are needed? Your giving me a laugh, here.
Selective quoting? Seriously. He went on to talk about the "facts" in science vs. theories. Keep reading.
I've Come To Realize That "Facts" Don't Mean Much If A Person Refuses To Accept Them
by minimus 160 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Satanus
Yes, he explained the diff between facts and theories. If you will notice, what i said was that science facts were not complete. That means that new facts would be accepted. The theory aspect wasn't really a part of what i said. He firmly dissagreed w me, ie, he says that science accepts no new facts.
S
-
Gopher
Shelby:
for many... most... and possibly most here... something is not a fact... until it is verified. But that's not really the definition trying to be sold. What is trying to be SOLD... is that something is not TRUE... until it is verified. And THAT... is a lie. Again, the earth was round BEFORE man verified that it was.
Please read my previous post responding to Satanus about fact vs. scientific theory. As to your example of the earth being round, yes it was always a fact. However it was not verified to the majority of civilization until Greek astronomy of the 3rd century BC, and further verified by European circumnavigation of our globe in the 16th century by Magellan.
Before it was verified, it could only be a scientific theory - i.e. the best explanation by the consensus of scientists. Some facts are waiting to be discovered.
So I will not and never did assert that facts are not true until they are verified. I only say that facts ARE verifiable (or become verifiable as scientific technology makes that possible) and at that point are incontrovertible.
Whereas religion, by its very nature, is not on a quest for facts because it claims to know all the truth already. In such religion there is no need for further investigation, it's said to be already frozen in time in the ancient wisdom of its books.
Perhaps when the proponents of science stop SPEAKING and ACTING like the proponents of religion, more people would listen to them.
By saying that you seem to condemn proponents of religion!
And I am not here vouching for the humility or honesty of all members of the scientific community. But I do say that bad research and bad claims in the realm of science are eventually exposed and corrected by other diligent and honest scientists. Fraudulent theories like "cold fusion" eventually get rooted out. The advancement towards more solid explanations for the world around us continually happens in science.
Religionists can't see/understand where proponents of science are coming from when THEY say the facts "can change."
Please see my scientific facts vs. theories points my post made in response to Satanus. Scientific people don't say facts change. (Only liars do.) Scientists can refine theories or even drop them all together. Einstein humbly dropped the Static Universe theory when a correction was brought to his attention. Einstein wasn't changing facts when he dropped the Static Universe theory, because he didn't ever say it was a fact!
-
Gopher
what i said was that science facts were not complete. That means that new facts would not be accepted. The theory aspect wasn't really a part of what i said. He firmly dissagreed w me, ie, he says that science accepts no new facts.
Glad I gave you a good laugh. However....
I think you may have misunderstood me here. I never said science accepts no new facts, and I never meant to imply that.
My meaning of that part of my earlier post to you is: once a FACT is established, it is complete. It cannot be reversed, and it does not need to be amended. A ray of sunlight takes 8 minutes (rounded to the nearest minute) to reach planet earth from the sun. That is a fact that won't be changed. It isn't a working theory. Working theories like the Constant Universe theory can be amended or even superseded when strong evidence (as accepted by a consensus of scientists) warrants it.
-
Satanus
Gopher
I meant incomplete in number. Thats why i used the descriptor, canon. You are taking it as if i said that facts themselves were incomplete, which was not the meaning intended.
S
-
Satanus
EP
He misunderstood me, first.
S
-
Gopher
Satanus
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Satanus
Had to do some editing. Darn weed.
S
-
THE GLADIATOR
Gopher "Scientific theories are constantly under scrutiny and review as the scientific search for the best possible explanation never ends."
What endears me to science is the honesty, openess and integrity of science as a community.
The dishonesty and duplicity of the religious community has left many people disillusioned.
Science seeks truth whereas religion seeks coverts.
-
GromitSK
@apognophos - thank you for clarifying.