It's only a matter of time

[_plunderpunk]

Nothing in science is ever a fully closed case, and all scientific theories are tentative forever. That is the nature - and limitations - of the scientific enterprise and its perceptual methodology.

Theories in science are fundamentally as close to science fact as one can get.
Yes, they are tentative forever. That is the nature and strength of science.
Evolving is how the entire natural world, including humans, survived long enough
to reach this point in history. Remember the phrase, "Evolve or die"? Saying the
ability to change is a limitation suggests that you see science through a dogmatic lens.

[_Buffalo]

It is true today that heat is average molecular kinetic energy. When do you think that will stop being true?

It is true today that germs cause infectious disease. I wonder when that will stop being true.

It is true today that DNA encodes instructions for protein synthesis. Not true in a few years?

Your little science-is-changing trope is just as silly coming from you as it was from my mother back when I was 12.
It is tantamount to thinking that since we may learn new things and find we were wrong about a few things, we may as well believe in whatever fairytale our hearts desire regardless of evidence.

Keep in mind that Tarski is an unabashed believer in AGW, a religion based in faith and emotional commitment, so his criticisms here, while intellectually problematic in their own right, smack of hypocrisy.

Nothing in science is ever a fully closed case, and all scientific theories are tentative forever. That is the nature - and limitations - of the scientific enterprise and its perceptual methodology.

Please, don't pollute the thread with your nutbag political ideas. Try to stay on topic.

You're right that science is always open to correction, but Tarski gave some good examples of things that really won't change except in small details. Certain theories become so well-tested that they become, essentially, facts.

Contrast that with religion, specifically the Judeo Christian variety. The pagan Greeks, through scientific observation, knew the world was round at the same time the Hebrew prophets thought the world resembled something like a snow globe. Science has error correction built into its very nature. Religion is an error-encoder. It stumbles along behind science and occasionally learns from it. But it's always science that corrects the mistakes of religion, not vice versa.

[_Buffalo]

In the confrontation between science and religion, when has religion proven science to be wrong?

Do you even realize how nonsensical that statement is?

By what standard of "proof" are you suggesting that religion will prove science wrong? Scientific? In that case it is science proving science wrong (a normal process).

If Jesus were to appear to you tomorrow would you argue that the experience was religion proving science wrong?

I also deny that there is such a confrontation. The "battle between science and religion" sells books and seems to have infatuated our discourse but the whole concept of the battle is inane.

Wherever religion offers falsifiable supernatural claims, science has been there to test them. They never stand up to scrutiny.

[_The Nehor]

Wherever religion offers falsifiable supernatural claims, science has been there to test them. They never stand up to scrutiny.

What falsifiable supernatural claims has science been debunking all this time? I'm not talking about historical events either which science can't test for. I mean supernatural claims held by LDS and other Christians that science has conclusively proved false.

[_Buffalo]

Wherever religion offers falsifiable supernatural claims, science has been there to test them. They never stand up to scrutiny.

What falsifiable supernatural claims has science been debunking all this time? I'm not talking about historical events either which science can't test for. I mean supernatural claims held by LDS and other Christians that science has conclusively proved false.

Historical events certainly CAN be tested for veracity. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have already failed the test, by the way.

Anyway, a good example of this is faith healing. It has been scientifically demonstrated to have no more value than a placebo.

More examples: the creation of the earth as described in the Bible, the global flood, the tower of babel, the exodus, near death experiences and out of body experiences, special creation by an intelligent designer, the shape of the earth, the nature of the solar system, diving rods (a.k.a. the "Rod of Aaron"), miracles of any kind, etc.


Wiki has an excellent table that illustrates the gulf between science and religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscie ... udoscience

[_Buffalo]

Oh, not to mention the junk science in the book of Abraham about the stars getting their light from Kolob by the medium of Kli-flos-is-es.

[Guest]

In the confrontation between science and religion, when has religion proven science to be wrong?

....
I also deny that there is such a confrontation. The "battle between science and religion" sells books and seems to have infatuated our discourse but the whole concept of the battle is inane.

Galilei.

[_The Nehor]

Historical events certainly CAN be tested for veracity.

They can be analyzed for evidence as to whether something did or did not happen or could or could not have happened. This is irrelevant though and I purposely avoided it because history is not one of the sciences.

Science works by looking at what is happening in the real world and then hypothesizing as to why that is. Then you use a set of controlled experiments to verify or refute the hypothesis. If history were a science you'd verify the battle of Waterloo by getting Napoleon back somehow, setting up the terrain and geography exactly the same, giving him the same men to fight with, and have them battle it out to see what the results are. For various reasons we do not do that.

So even if you are right (and you're not) saying that history beat out religion does not mean SCIENCE!!!! won.

The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have already failed the test, by the way.

I disrespectfully disagree.

Anyway, a good example of this is faith healing. It has been scientifically demonstrated to have no more value than a placebo.

Okay, since I don't believe "faith healing" (or what this term usually means) ever worked as advertised I don't care for this at all.

More examples: the creation of the earth as described in the Bible, the global flood, the tower of babel, the exodus,

History, not science.

near death experiences and out of body experiences,

That certain changes occur in the body does not prove that these do not involve something leaving the body. I am personally undecided on whether it happens at all anyways.

special creation by an intelligent designer,

Science has proved this now???? Wow. Did they create a Universe without an intelligent designer? Only way I can see to test the theory.

the shape of the earth,

Silliness. The Christians knew the Earth was round. This was known since around 600 BCE at least.

the nature of the solar system,

What nature? You mean that the earth wasn't the center of the Universe? Huh.....and here I was thinking those Jewish and Christian writing about other worlds might actually mean something?

diving rods (a.k.a. the "Rod of Aaron"),

Aaron was a diver?

miracles of any kind, etc.

Since miracles are by their very nature an intervention into the natural world that cannot be repeated on command they can't be tested scientifically. You can't recreate the situation and test for it and expect it to happen again.

Wiki has an excellent table that illustrates the gulf between science and religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscie ... udoscience

If you define religion as pseudoscience that would mean something. I don't. I don't learn much science or pseudoscience in Church. It is not what religion is about.

Nice try though.

[_The Nehor]

Galilei.

The guy who counted among his strongest allies members of the Church? The guy who alienated most of his ecclesiastical sympathizers by insulting them?

This is your great conflict between religion and science? Where many religious people defended science?

Your grade-school level understanding of Galileo isn't doing you any favors.

[_Themis]

They can be analyzed for evidence as to whether something did or did not happen or could or could not have happened. This is irrelevant though and I purposely avoided it because history is not one of the sciences.

Actually you are incorrect. Historical claims in many cases like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Global flood, age of earth, etc are testable by science, and have come up short. An example would be the Book of Mormon making historical claims about animals, plants, technology, etc existing in a certain areas and time periods. Science can of course, and has, tested those claims.