Are science theories faith based?

[swansont]

StringJunky , I'll give you an example , If I stand in the middle of the traffic lane on the road at 3 P.M. in the afternoon , scientists can say all they like about a 99% confidence level or a 99% probability that a car will crash into me within 1 hour . That does not mean it will happen .

 

The standards of proof should be at 100% . It has been mathmatically shown to me why 99.9999................ % would be acceptable as being 100% .

 

Nobody cares what I think , StringJunky , but this is what I think , below 100% is unproven theory , 100% is fact .

 

This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming this; similarly, a very low probability doesn't mean something is impossible, and nobody here is claiming that, either.

Prediction ≠ proof

 

However, that is separate from the issue of the exceedingly naive position that the standard of proof should be 100%. It's unattainable. All processes exhibit noise. You can never have enough data to ensure that your signal is not a statistical fluctuation with 100% certainty.

[Hal.]

Go into a lecture hall with 350 people there and watch a professor moving a piece of chalk across a blackboard to describe his latest wonder .

 

There are 350 witnesses to the motion . Is the testimony of these 350 people enough to make the motion 100% proven ?

[Klaynos]

No, they are human, they make mistakes, even in the notes they are making at the time.

[Hal.]

Klaynos , Are you possibly making a mistake ?

 

Definition of Motion will be the movement meaning from one place to another .

Edited April 19, 2011 by hal_2011

[Klaynos]

Please go and read about eyewitness fallibility.

[ajb]

Go into a lecture hall with 350 people there and watch a professor moving a piece of chalk across a blackboard to describe his latest wonder .

 

There are 350 witnesses to the motion . Is the testimony of these 350 people enough to make the motion 100% proven ?

 

 

So, all 350 witnesses will say that the chalk was in motion relative to the blackboard. But was the chalk in motion relative to the professors hand? The answer is no. Thus, one cannot say that the chalk was in absolute motion. In particular, I cannot unambiguously understand your notion of "motion 100% proven".

[Klaynos]

Perhaps the chalk was the only stationary thing in the room...

[Hal.]

The question is simple . I will take into account answers that have been placed here and rephrase .

 

The piece of chalk is moving relative to the blackboard . Is the eye-witness testimony of 350 people , 100% proof that motion has taken place ?

[SMF]

Hal_2011:

 

No.

 

SM

[Klaynos]

The question is simple . I will take into account answers that have been placed here and rephrase .

 

The piece of chalk is moving relative to the blackboard . Is the eye-witness testimony of 350 people , 100% proof that motion has taken place ?

 

No. It increases the likely hood that they all believe they saw the chalk moving.

 

The way you have put the question is slanted though, you assume immediately that the event has happened, the only fair way to approach it is to assume nothing.

 

If we put an accelerometer on the chalk and had it record the results then we would at least know the chalk was having a force applied upon it so it was accelerating.

 

I'll suggest again you look at eyewitness fallibility and appreciate that the reason scientists use measurement equipment, it's accurate and doesn't make stuff up. Of course what you are measuring might not be what you thought you were but the measurement is always of what you were measuring.

[Hal.]

Let's assume there is an accelerometer on the chalk and one on the professor too . Eyewitness testimony of 350 physicists , mathmaticians , chemists and the cleaning lady says that the professor moved the piece of chalk across the blackboard to graphically represent his thoughts .

 

It is on camera , there is sound evidence of a screeching board , the chalk is being transferred to the board .

 

Is this 100% proven that motion has taken place ?

 

I do recognise some people have said ' no ' .

Edited April 19, 2011 by hal_2011

[swansont]

How do I know it's not a hologram?

 

Or that there isn't some massive conspiracy? Why would 350 physicists, mathmaticians (sic) chemists and the cleaning lady be in a lecture hall? Who uses chalk anymore? Sounds fishy to me!

[SMF]

I think we need James Randi to explain this.

[pwagen]

The evidence woul be anecdotal, would it not?

 

The accelerator is a good idea, since it gives us the possibility to repeat the experiment in a controlled environment. Even then, we can only be reasonably certain the chalk moved. In some cases, this is enough. We're reasonably certain that if we drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. In some cases, we need to be absolutely certain. I can be wrong, but theoretical physics comes to mind. Or math exams.

[Klaynos]

I'm prepared to accept the chalk and the professor probably moved. I'd need to do some analysis on the data from the accelerometers to ascertain as to whether their movements were linked. But there would still be other possibilities that even if I couldn't think of would still exist.

[Hal.]

 

Choose an answer !

 

If 350 people who are physicists , chemists , mathmaticians and the cleaning lady see a professor writing on the board with a piece of chalk , is testimony from each and every one of these people enough evidence to say the professor moved the piece of chalk , 100% proven motion ?

 

It is not a trick question , it is a question of what the requirements are for 100% proof and it is noted that some people have answered ' no ' to the previous form of this question and others think there is no such thing as 100% proof .

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Choose an answer !

 

If 350 people who are physicists , chemists , mathmaticians and the cleaning lady see a professor writing on the board with a piece of chalk , is testimony from each and every one of these people enough evidence to say the professor moved the piece of chalk , 100% proven motion ?

 

It is not a trick question , it is a question of what the requirements are for 100% proof and it is noted that some people have answered ' no ' to the previous form of this question and others think there is no such thing as 100% proof .

 

I thought all that had proved ( beyond reasonable doubt) that the chalk moved, but then I woke up.

[Klaynos]

Choose an answer !

 

If 350 people who are physicists , chemists , mathmaticians and the cleaning lady see a professor writing on the board with a piece of chalk , is testimony from each and every one of these people enough evidence to say the professor moved the piece of chalk , 100% proven motion ?

 

It is not a trick question , it is a question of what the requirements are for 100% proof and it is noted that some people have answered ' no ' to the previous form of this question and others think there is no such thing as 100% proof .

 

I fear it is a trick question if the only answer you will accept is, yes it is 100% proof. I would never be that sure of anything... Science is NEVER that sure of anything, the only way you can be is if you know all the information that can possibly be known about everything. And even then it's a bit of a meh because of quantum mechanics...

[Hal.]

If science is never that sure of anything , Klaynos , science is all theory and no fact .

 

 

[Klaynos]

And we are back to arguing over the meaning of words. Please go and.read.about what is involved in modem physics and what a theory is and actually means.

[Phi for All]

If science is never that sure of anything , Klaynos , science is all theory and no fact .

It's abundantly clear that you have listened to nothing anybody wrote. You don't understand what a theory or a fact in science really is.

 

The scientific method is trusted because it's capable of figuring out where mistakes lie and fixing them. This is one of the reasons why we say there is no 100% certainty, because we want to be able to adapt when new evidence comes to light. 100% certainty is what people of faith say they have, with no room for doubt. Science needs that little bit of doubt to keep itself healthy and honest. Nothing is sacred in science, but you need some major proof to attack a good theory.

[Hal.]

The reason scientists want to use less than 100% proof is that they want to be happy in the thinking that they are correct while always leaving another option open , just in case .

 

 

[insane_alien]

Hal, you're not being a clever debater here, you're just being a dick.

 

we've explained the scientific process to you and why certainty can never be 100%(although it can get so close than you can round up if you want) and why that is acceptable.

 

if you are going to continue to just ignore everyone and use the inappropriate definitions of words then i suggest you find another forum because you're not going to get far here. people will quickly tire of the intellectual dishonesty.

[Hal.]

Insane_alien ,

 

This is scientific debate at the highest level , your pollution of slang is unwarranted .

 

Certainty is 100% , that is why it is called certainty .

 

It would be wise to decipher the praise of my comments in previous posts .

 

Insane Alien , In Ireland only pussies say dick , men say Bollox !

 

 

[insane_alien]

Insane_alien ,

 

This is scientific debate at the highest level , your pollution of slang is unwarranted .

 

I've been involved in scientific debate, what you are producing isn't it. What you are producing is semantics which are only in question by you.

 

Insane Alien , In Ireland only pussies say dick , men say Bollox !

 

again, incorrect use of language. being a dick and bollocks are two different things.

 

bollocks is what you say, not what you are.