Strange

And, mutatis mutandis, the 1860s, the 1760s, the ...

And it can be argued that it is impossible to know what they "really" are. All we have are our observations and measurements. Even without science, we build a mental model of the world around us based on those perceptions but there is no way of knowing how well, if at all, that model corresponds to the reality out there. Because all we have are our perceptions. Science just allows us to make more accurate measurements and build more detailed and mathematical models. We can test these models against what we observe but never against what is "really" out there.

Indeed, that does seem to be part of the problem. The OP's insistence that theories are either true or false doesn't allow for the realistic nature of science (or the world in general). Things are never that black and white.

Don't worry it is mutual. OK. So what should they do, in your opinion? Ignore the evidence? Start again, de novo, with every new observation?

Do you have any evidence to support this?

So there seem to be two ways in which "truth" is used in this context. It appears I have misunderstood you. You seem to be using "truth" as a synonym for reality (i.e. whatever it is that exists "out there"). In which case, I would say there is no difference: producing better models of reality = better models of the truth (because, by your definition these are exactly the same thing). What others often mean when they talk about truth with regard to scientific theories is whether the underlying model is true or not. So, for example, they may say that the model of gravity as a force in Newtonian physics is not true because we now know that gravity is space-time curvature. And they may assert that this description is "true"; i.e. there really is a thing called space-time and it really is curved. All I am saying is that that model is not necessarily true, it is just a better model of reality or, at least, what we observe ("reality" might be something completely different). On the subject of realism vs idealism (or instrumentalism); I think it is irrelevant. If there is some sort of "reality" out there that we produce increasingly accurate (or "truer") models of, then great. But the nature of that reality (or whether it even exists) is probably unknowable. So if all we do is produce better models of what we perceive (which may not necessarily be "the truth") then, great. Either way it is a useful and productive exercise. Which is one of the reasons I don't have much time for this sort of philosophical havering (so I wonder why I have spent so much time on it). I don't have an opinion either way. It is a meaningless question.

I don't think anyone would claim that science works that way in practice. When I agreed with this in response to your initial post, I assumed you were talking about the general principle rather than the ridiculous notion of discarding the entirety of science on the basis of one, potentially, erroneous result. (See, we can all be ridiculously hyperbolic.) After you posted this, I noticed there was some discussion of this in this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73253-effing-science-how-does-it-work/ There have been other threads on the subject over the years. When this has been discussed on this and other forums, and on the radio, etc. I don't remember hearing any scientists say anything other than theories are just attempts to model reality, not attempts to uncover the truth. Given the way that theories are constantly being modified in the light of new evidence, it would be very short sighted for anyone to say "this theory is true". A few years ago, I said something similar and used a phrase like "the process of science" and someone said "you mean the scientific method, why can't you say that". <shrug> Whether "The Scientific Method" in its ideal form exists or not (and I think we all agree it doesn't), the overall process is, in the long-run, self correcting. Towards more accurate descriptions, yes. Truth? I am not convinced. Ironic, from someone so fond of opinion and assertion. Quite. It is not about truth, it is about better, more useful, more accurate descriptions. There are cases where a theory has been "ignominiously dumped" but they are few and far between. Simply because a good theory is based on what we observe and is usually going to be a reasonable description of that. In the cases where the old model is found to be totally contradicted by new evidence then the old model will be discarded as completely incorrect (phlogiston, steady state cosmology, plum-pudding atomic model, static continents, etc). In other cases, where the evidence does not contradict the theory but just shows it is not always accurate or is otherwise incomplete, then the theory is not dumped but adjusted for the new observations. And, in some cases, a new theory is developed which can co-exist with the old theory. But, I suppose one could argue that the old theory is discarded: our old model of the solar system was thrown away and replaced with a new one containing one extra planet; our old model of the galaxy was dumped and replaced with a new one containing a large amount of dark matter (attempts to dump GR and formulate a new theory of gravity haven't worked out yet). And so on. However you describe it, surely it is the right thing to do: replace or modify a theory when evidence requires it. And this is, of course, only possible because theories are not regarded as religious truths.

Of course you do.

Apparently he was wrong about that as well.

Ah, yes. The old standby: quantum woo. Love, friendship, hugs, kind words. Same way as anyone else, I guess. So are you claiming that The Universe deleted it because it knew I wouldn't understand it? You won't be missed.

This sounds implausible. Presumably you have some "hard irrefutable evidence" that consensus appeals more to atheists? (And what do you mean by "middlemen"?) But maybe you are right: after all the religious don't like consensus (or evidence) they prefer being told what to do and think by someone in authority.

Assuming that such a "higher truth" exists. As man is part of nature, then anything man produces is natural. Unless you are saying that anthills and beaver dams are not natural as well? The consensus is the result of science, not the basis. So I don't understand your point here. So where is your "hard irrefutable evidence" that God exists?

Perhaps you would like a calculator that spits out random answers based on information in your favourite holy book. The answers might be wrong, but they would be "true" on some deeper level.

The only observable properties of a black hole are mass, angular momentum and electric charge. How is your obsession with pressure relevant? I don't think anyone thinks that (outside of science fiction and poor journalism). That may be true. However, without a theory of quantum gravity it is unsupportable. What is a "space-time reference"?

So you think the universe does care what you think? That is not being open minded, it is being uncritical and irrational.

Well, it is to them, obviously. But it is not proof in any scientific (or even legal) sense. I don't think that the small number of individuals who get excited enough to embarrass themselves on a science forum have much to do with the policies of mainstream religions. I have no idea what the percentage is, but there are scientists who are religious. <shrug>

It would, if mass or energy were quantised. But there is no evidence for that currently. The trouble is, describing the increase in energy as an increase in mass seems to cause more confusion. But if you want to think of it that way, feel free. It is simpler, and more accurate, to just take both mass and energy into account when calculating the gravitational effects. It is the energy (light has no mass) that creates a black hole in that scenario. But that has nothing to do with "creating space-time". Space-time is just shorthand for the geometry of the spatial and temporal cooridinate system which is modified by the presence of mass-energy. You can't "create" geometry. Gravity is the curvature of space-time. Space-time is curved by the presence of mass. Black holes have mass, therefore they curve space time. Gravity isn't like light; it doesn't need to get "out" of the black hole. I guess the only way to really understand this is via the mathematical description. I haven't seen a graphical depiction of this that makes it intuitive. (There isn't much about black holes that is intuitive!) But that description is based on the Schwarzschild metric. There is an alternative (equivalent) description that might make more intuitive sense (as long as you don't take it too literally): http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

GR includes pressure as one of the factors contributing to space-time curvature. So that is irrelevant to black holes. Why bring it up? Also irrelevant. As this can only happen inside the event horizon, and therefore makes no difference to what is perceived outside the event horizon, this is also irrelevant. Its mass does not increase, just its total energy. But that is a simplistic view based on special relativity and cannot be applied in the case of a black hole. No. Why would it, any more than any other object moving through space. Space time isn't "stuff" that enters a black hole. Gravity isn't like radiation. The black hole has mass and therefore curves the space-time around it. This is what we call gravity. Obviously, you can't measure anything infinitely small. But you can make measurements as small as you wish if you have instruments to measure it. The classical way of measuring G is to measure the gravitational effect of small lead spheres. That is pretty small.

Well, it is hardly surprising that they will look to their own sources to back up their beliefs. That isn't looking for "proof", just confirmation. The point at which it becomes odd (to my mind) is when they try and interpret or twist science to claim it supports their beliefs. Well, obviously. But the subject of religion (i.e. metaphysics and God or gods) is, by definition, outside the scope of science (which deals with understanding the natural world, not the supernatural). Some might. Most don't. And, of course, many of those advancing our understanding through science are themselves religious.

Ah so. Even subtler than I thought. I was thinking that the map (in the abstract sense) was the product of science, but engineers turn it into a usable device. Or something. Zengineering?

Exactly, religion doesn't (or shouldn't) need proof. Science is (or should be) independent of individual scientists beliefs, biases or preferences. Huh? I am saying the exact opposite. Science is obviously not a religion. But religion is irrelevant to sceince; religion is not, by definition, amenable to science. Most mainstream religions seem to find some way of reconciling their beliefs with reality.

Surely that would be the lens?

Not all religions believe in a (literal) life after death. But those things are not in opposition to science, they are just outside the scope of, or irrelevant to, science. After all, science cannot prove there is not a god or life after death (any more than it can prove that there is). Most major mainstream religions seem quite happy to accept the findings of science.

I like that. I have no idea what it means, but I'm sure it is very clever.

There is a big difference between being so "open minded" (gullible) that you will believe any old mystical piffle, and being truly open minded: sceptical but willing to accept anything which is backed up by evidence or logic. It could be argued that the religious are closed minded because they just believe what they are told and reject anything else. However, I won't argue that because I don't have any evidence for it. Do you have any evidence to support that? I don't believe it is true.