PhysicsGuy stated:
I guess the part I disagree with most is the part I highlighted in red. The sentence as you have it is technically correct, but it is missing some fundamental points that would change the conclusion you draw.
You make no “fundamental points.”
PhysicsGuy stated:
Yes, science does the sort of speculation you mention (about future discoveries), but that is only a small portion of the total speculation that science does. There is often a surprisingly large amount of speculation in current theories that the layman incorrectly assumes are "fact".
No refutation. If “layman” make incorrect
assumptions, it’s not the fault of scientists or of science. What examples are you prepared to offer supporting your
claim that science speculates? The implication of your statement appears to be that
science speculates and reaches conclusions certain absent evidence.
If that’s your position, it’s incorrect. Science does not do that. Nor do scientists
go it alone absent peer review, testing by those skeptical of results. Religious pundits offer no such openness nor do they welcome challenge.
PhysicsGuy stated:
I also agree that science does not practice truth by assertion, but it is heavily involved in truth by assumption.
“Heavily involved...” You offer no specifics for your generalized
claim. Absent evidence for your hasty generalization, you’re not persuasive.
PhysicsGuy continues:
This is especially the case when the "truth" you are discussing is something outside of simple outcomes of experiments. Before any theory is put forth, science has to come up with a list of the assumptions the theory is based upon (this list is probably larger than most would think). If any of these assumptions are wrong, the conclusions of the theory are incorrect (although it may still predict experiments reasonably well).
Incorrect. Before an articulated
theory there is an
hypothesis subjected to testing.
Hypotheses and Theories
Hypothesis
Note: “The scientific method requires that one can
test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.”
An hypothesis is
not an assumption as you state. And an hypothesis
comes before a theory.
PhysicsGuy stated:
I guess I have two points that I'm trying to get across.
1) Science is not the impenetrable fortress of fact that so many people think it is. It has no real evidence that anything it is saying is correct, apart from predicting simple outcomes of experiments.
Fallacy of minimization: Distortion of word-meaning.
What’s “real evidence?” Your statement is incorrect. It is scientists who have done the
penetrating by discovery open to skeptical review.
PhysicsGuy continued:
2) The evidence theists have for the existence of God is riddled with assumptions, and is no better than the evidence atheists use against God because it is also riddled with assumptions.
Fundamental misunderstanding:
Evidence is not established for
God claims. One who does not believe in
gods or
God is not obligated to present
anything in the
absence of an affirmative case. You misunderstand the
burden of proof for the one making a claim. The affirmative claim of religious pundits is
God (generally singular today). Hence, that
claim requires evidence which is open to skeptical review.
PhysicsGuy continued:
Neither side has any real evidence (scientifically speaking) supporting its position. This is simply because science does not have the capability.
Incorrect conclusion. It’s religious myth-makers who have
no evidence. You appear to have no concept of
Scientific Method.
From the above description, the following:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Hence, your claim that “neither side has any real evidence...” is incorrect and a misunderstanding.
PhysicsGuy continued:
I agree that theists should probably not talk about the existence of God as if it were fact unless the people they are talking to agree with that assumption. I also think that atheists should not talk of the non-existence of God as fact unless the people they are talking to agree with that assumption.
Whether the “people they are talking to”
agree is irrelevant. Flawed, faulty, fallacious, and inaccurate statements remain unsound and unsatisfactory regardless of how those listening
think or fail to think.
The issue for science is to access factual, reliable, detailed information. And from that information, science builds tested and skeptically reviewed tentative conclusion (tested by other scientists or anyone else).
You have some misconception about what or how most
atheists think. Most would say nothing unless confronted by a
God pundit who is attempting to
sell religion. Most are not, as you appear to assume, trying
to prove anything.
Rather, most atheists challenge the
truth by assertion claims made without any support beyond the assertion. It is
theists who have the
burden of proof for
their claims.
JAK