Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_Themis]

Heliocentrism is overdue to be overthrown then don't you think?

It is interesting you use this as an example, because Heliocentrism was proven wrong in the late 1800s or so. Modern science no longer believes in Heliocentrism. The Sun is not the center of the Universe. Modern science believes there is no fixed center of the universe.

You may chuckle or think that I am straining at gnats, but this is a serious issue. My understanding is that rejecting Heliocentrism was a relatively difficult thing for scientists to swallow that took a long time. Yes, much of the applied science observations with Heliocentrism were correct and continued on in our current theories, but the basic theory (the thing everyone based their reasoning on) was flat out wrong.

It is tempting to think that throwing out these old theories was trivial, or that it should be obvious, but this is not the case. It is only obvious to us because we were trained with the new paradigm. Just as the people who live 100 years from now will wonder why it was so difficult for scientists to throw out Quantum Mechanics or the Big Bang. Look at epicycles and Geocentrism. Scientists are willing to throw all sorts of math-based patches at a theory long before they are willing to toss the theory out and start over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

So when will the idea that the planets orbiting the sun be thrown out?

[_Gorman]

Of course, there are some topics between religion and science where the overlap is much greater (evolution might be one of these). For these topics, you must either be willing to stretch the religious assumptions close to the breaking point or be willing to stretch the scientific theories close to the breaking point. Mostly, this exercise just reveals our own personal bias to one or the other.

Nonsense. Evolution is not a theory based upon bias. It is not amenable to other interpretations. Common ancestry is the strongest established fact in science today. It is backed by more evidence than one can peruse in a single lifetime. Religion is not backed by any evidence and to suggest that it is on an equal standing with science is a nonsensical conclusion based upon post modernism.

Evolution has much evidence behind it, but pile all that evidence up and it isn't even a spec compared to the evidence piled up behind Newtonian Physics. Newton was wrong, what makes you think Evolution can't be?

Sure, whatever replaces Evolution will still look "Evolution-y." There is too much clear-cut, experimental data showing that plants and animals evolve. But what makes you think that whatever replaces Evolution will still absolutely preclude a religious viewpoint?

Aren't we already on the third Theory of Evolution anyway? Evolution 3.0? Or at least Evolution 2.0? I'm pretty sure I recall reading that the original Theory of Evolution claimed that parents could pass on acquired traits to their offspring (e.g. a father who worked out at the gym would have stronger sons). When DNA came along, they had to throw out the old theory and bring on the next iteration. Although, the biologists understand public relations better than the physicists. When they throw out an old theory, they name the new theory the same thing. Then it's easier for the scientists to maintain the public's trust.

I know it might look like I'm straining at gnats again, but we are not strictly talking about science here. We are talking about how science affects people's worldview or religious beliefs. You can't claim that people's worldview wasn't changed when they were told that all those hours at the gym wouldn't directly pass on to their children. Or that all the lotion in the world wouldn't give their babies smooth skin. Or that the Sun is no longer the center of the Universe. Or that uncertainty is king and his pet is Schrodinger's Cat.

Ultimately, it is tempting for us scientists to say, "These are all just small changes to the theory. We aren't actually completely replacing anything here. Just keep trusting us."

Yes, the "what we see" didn't change a whole lot, but the "why nature works this way" is completely different. When scientists comment on religion, it is almost always the "why nature works this way" part of the theories that they use. Those are the most unreliable parts.

[Guest]

Newtonian mechanics isn't dead wrong. In fact it is great for a certain class of problems. Please explain how f=ma is dead wrong for explaining the motion of a macro particle.

Works for projectiles, and rockets and all kinds if useful things. If I were an employer and you spouted the blanket statement that you made while interviewing, I don't know if I would be very inclined to hire you.

Just like my friend the yec engineer who is certain entropy precludes evolution. Very smart guy with a very incorrect belief.

[_Themis]

Gorman,
Newtons theories and laws are still used, taught and preached every day. Methinks you never took a physics class. Newtonian motion is the basis for classical physics.


Wait ...

Aren't you a physicists?

I'm pretty sure I explained this to you before, but maybe a refresher is necessary.

It sounds as if you haven't taken anything above freshman-level physics. Yes, Newtonian Mechanics is the basis for classical mechanics. But classical mechanics is dead wrong. It was shown to be wrong 100 years ago or so. Yes we still use lots of classical mechanics as a short cut, but that doesn't make the theory right, it just makes it useful.

You seem to be conflating theoretical science and applied science. Applied science tells us what happens. Theoretical science tries to tell us why. Applied science rarely changes. When people say science builds on top of its past, they are talking about applied science. Theoretical science is wrong all the time. Theories are disposed of every few generations. That is just a historical fact. Applied science has relatively little to say about god or religion. Theoretical science tries to say very much about god and religion. Luckily for the religious people, theoretical science has a relatively poor track record.

Newtonian physics still works just as well. In the past with less understating some ideas were certainly wrong, but like the idea that the sun was the center of the universe, it was an idea not based on real science. I can understand why some made the assumption it was, much the same as the earth being the center of the universe. Reality is that real science doesn't make up things like religion. Religion has many frauds like Joseph smith who make things up. In many cases they make vague claims we cannot test. Unfortunately we both know Joseph made claims we can test which fail huge, telling us he was a fraud.

[_Themis]

Evolution has much evidence behind it, but pile all that evidence up and it isn't even a spec compared to the evidence piled up behind Newtonian Physics. Newton was wrong, what makes you think Evolution can't be?

Newton was right on many essentials which still work today. Evolution is the same way. Evolution -y is still evolution with some adjustments. Some of the essentials ideas are still right with no indication they will ever be wrong. This is how science works. Even if one makes the wrong assumption that the sun is the center of the universe when they realize the planets revolve around the sun, it will never change the knowledge that the planets do indeed revolve around the sun.

[_Gorman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

So when will the idea that the planets orbiting the sun be thrown out?

As you well know, that portion of the theory was not entirely thrown out (assuming you strictly keep to a reference frame including only the solar system). The part that said the Sun was the center of the Universe was the part that was thrown out. Needless to say, a monumental change to the theory.

If you expand your reference frame beyond the solar system, we know that the planets are actually orbiting the center of this galaxy while at the same time orbiting a small star we like to call "the Sun". I imagine you could also throw in some galactic obits in there as well, but that would go beyond my familiarity with the topic.

Imagine trying to go back to the 1700s and explain that the sun is actually orbiting a larger collection of Suns which is possibly orbiting some other collection at the same time. They would surely pull out Ptolemy's epicycles on you . . . or at least Occam's razor.

[_SteelHead]

Gee Gorman. ..some theories prove out and become laws. And yes I understand the difference between applied and theoretical. One is the how of gravity the other is the why.

By way of track records via methodologies for understanding what we experience, I'll take science. You can stay in the demon haunted world of revealed religion.

So far there are 0 bits of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon as historical. Not a good start.

[_Themis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

So when will the idea that the planets orbiting the sun be thrown out?

As you well know, that portion of the theory was not entirely thrown out (assuming you strictly keep to a reference frame including only the solar system). The part that said the Sun was the center of the Universe was the part that was thrown out. Needless to say, a monumental change to the theory.

If you expand your reference frame beyond the solar system, we know that the planets are actually orbiting the center of this galaxy while at the same time orbiting a small star we like to call "the Sun". I imagine you could also throw in some galactic obits in there as well, but that would go beyond my familiarity with the topic.

Imagine trying to go back to the 1700s and explain that the sun is actually orbiting a larger collection of Suns which is possibly orbiting some other collection at the same time. They would surely pull out Ptolemy's epicycles on you . . . or at least Occam's razor.

Real science is something that has not had a long history. Very little was being done in the 1700's compared to even a 100 years later.

As we can see some new understanding was achieved about planets revolving around the sun. Knowledge that has never since been thrown out. This is how scientific knowledge has grown. Religion cannot compare. It just makes things up. My problem with you is that you want to sell the very incorrect idea that the two are on the same footing. This is why you will usually end up in areas where science does not have a good handle on.

[_Gorman]

Newtonian mechanics isn't dead wrong. In fact it is great for a certain class of problems. Please explain how f=ma is dead wrong for explaining the motion of a macro particle.

Works for projectiles, and rockets and all kinds if useful things. If I were an employer and you made the blanket statement that you made while interviewing, I don't know if I would be very inclined to hire you.

There is a difference between correctness and utility. Newton was wrong. That is a simple fact. That says nothing about its utility. Newtonian mechanics is still quite useful.

If I wanted to fire a projectile, I could use Newton. If I wanted to fire a rocket, I would probably have to discard Newton and use Einstein (GPS uses relativity).

You are conflating applied and theoretical science again.

Ultimately, science is useful. That is undisputed. This is thanks to applied science. In order for science to have any real ability to comment on religious beliefs, it must also be correct. That is almost certainly not the case. This is thanks to theoretical science.

[Guest]

Newtonian works fine for most rockets in the frame of Earth. No where near enough %C with the stuff we have available to us. GPS achieve high degree of accuracy at the nanosecond level, to resolve position to the centimeter level have to account for a small degree of time dialation. But putting the satellites into orbit was likely 99 some odd percent an exercise of classical physics.

It can be argued that relativity is the last bastion of classical physics.

That newtonian mechanics fail at the very small and very fast does not mean it is wrong. It would be wrong to apply it incorrectly.

When religious arguments intersect the realm of objectively testable they fall into the realm of science. The historicity of the Book of Mormon is such an example. Simply put, it isn't historical. Where the arguments of religion are unverifiable objectively, and can not be tested, then they fall outside of the realm of science. Just because we can imagine a construct, does not make it real.