Sign in to follow this  
RiceAWay

Hijack split from "Help!Theologians trying to understand AGW"

Recommended Posts

"An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,...states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history..."

I think that you have offended those here who consider themselves scientists and that a scientist can be nothing more than a atheist. Too bad that in place of God they put themselves and ever correcting theories up as proof of their own Gods.

I don't have a problem with anybody saying "God did it" as long as it fits with the science

I can think of NO theories that have been shown to be correct in Science save Einstein and what he did was to show that God set ultimate limits. Though don't say that to the Trekkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you have offended those here who consider themselves scientists and that a scientist can be nothing more than a atheist. Too bad that in place of God they put themselves and ever correcting theories up as proof of their own Gods.

I can think of NO theories that have been shown to be correct in Science save Einstein and what he did was to show that God set ultimate limits. Though don't say that to the Trekkies.

The ontology of all natural phenomena, aka 'reality', is unknown and shall likely remain so for a very, very long time. Until that time, science will always be 'wrong' in the absolute sense, as evidenced by the changes or abandonment of prevailing models. The important thing is that the models are useful for describing what they know at any given time and they can use them to advance what they know and can do. Scientists don't use the word 'truth' because it implies that there is no possibility for something being wrong at some point in the future. This is why the highest accolade that science can give to an idea is to call it a 'theory'. There is no such thing as 'just a theory' in science because such an idea has much evidential weight and scientific consensus behind it. It's the dog's gonads.

 

The notion of truth is absolute and belongs to religion because that is based on belief, which requires an arbitrary commitment to such a notion.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ontology of all natural phenomena, aka 'reality', is unknown and shall likely remain so for a very, very long time. Until that time, science will always be 'wrong' in the absolute sense, as evidenced by the changes or abandonment of prevailing models. The important thing is that the models are useful for describing what they know at any given time and they can use them to advance what they know and can do. Scientists don't use the word 'truth' because it implies that there is no possibility for something being wrong at some point in the future. This is why the highest accolade that science can give to an idea is to call it a 'theory'. There is no such thing as 'just a theory' in science because such an idea has much evidential weight and scientific consensus behind it. It's the dog's gonads.

 

The notion of truth is absolute and belongs to religion because that is based on belief, which requires an arbitrary commitment to such a notion.

Don't you think that trying to use science as best we can is a long way from declaring it the endall of being? After all, these days I find a very large percentage of people graduating with degrees in some sort of science calling religion "voodoo" or much worse. And yet a large percentage of these people cannot answer even very simple questions about their own major. This is why some 80% of college graduate never get a job in their major.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that trying to use science as best we can is a long way from declaring it the endall of being? After all, these days I find a very large percentage of people graduating with degrees in some sort of science calling religion "voodoo" or much worse. And yet a large percentage of these people cannot answer even very simple questions about their own major. This is why some 80% of college graduate never get a job in their major.

It's the best methodology for finding out about things that we have. There is no other system of analysis that comes close. The fact that the information it gathers and conclusions derived by that method can be, and is, modified with new information shows that it works well; the idea of 'truth' is, in reality, a moving target. Regardless of the ability of some people trained in it, the principles on which the scientific method are based is rock-solid; just because some people aren't very good doctors doesn't make the subject of medicine invalid.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think that trying to use science as best we can is a long way from declaring it the endall of being?

Who exactly is "declaring it the endall of being"? Fools? Yes. The inadequately educated? Yes. Those provoked by stupidity of others to overstate their case? Yes. Richard Dawkins? Oh, wait! We've already covered him with two out of three.

 

 

After all, these days I find a very large percentage of people graduating with degrees in some sort of science calling religion "voodoo" or much worse.

If by voodoo they mean "a superstitious suite of beliefs unsupported, and in many cases contradicted, by evidence" then that would appear to be an accurate statement. Your remark could also be taken as a slight on voodoo. Do you not consider voodoo to be a religion? What do you have against it?

 

 

This is why some 80% of college graduate never get a job in their major.

In the absence of a citation I take this to be an opinion. It is, however, not a very sound one.

 

If 80% of graduates never get a job in their major this is largely because the jobs are not available. If they were available then, on average, 80% of science jobs would go unfilled. Do we see this anywhere? In any discipline or geographic area? I rather think not.

 

A good degree, properly attained, delivers a graduate with an inquiring mind, critical thinking skills, and imaginative problem solving abilities. Those are applicable in a wide variety of professions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this