I heard this statement before and it occured to me that you need to. There are far too many threads on this board to prove my point…which is, handling topics like ambiogenesis, evoluton or anything else for that matter takes an EXTREEM amount of knowledge. At some point during a thread instead of explaining a ‘profound truth’ a poster will just make a link or quote a well known scientist. I accept that these topics are far too complicated to write down in so small a space, but can it also be agreed that we must eventually take science on faith? A child’s education doesn’t follow the ‘scientic method’, and since NO poster here has first hand knowldege of everything they say, at some point we just accept what we’re told.
An interesting topic. For myself I prefer to say that I trust science. Belief seems to imply faith without proof. Trust implies that science has proven itself effective in the past.
If you are using the definition that Creationists love to argue, that believing in evolution takes faith, that definition would be a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof,” and I find this to be quite erroneous.
What you seem to be saying is that unless you are an expert in a subject and know everything involved with it, you remain an ignorant layman who simply nods his or her head at those who are the experts.
I disagree. First of all, I can make perfectly good logical deductions on my own without taking an experts word for it.
Cecil’s column when someone asked for some evidence that a person on earth could do to prove that the world is a sphere instead of a concave-looking shape like a frisbee shows this - One doesn’t have to go to space in order to come to the same conclusions.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two weeks, two days, 17 hours, 38 minutes and 46 seconds.
669 cigarettes not smoked, saving $83.67.
Life saved: 2 days, 7 hours, 45 minutes.
Scientists are quoted, and their authority is respected, because they pursue a method of acquiring knowlege that is consistent and has been proven sucessful.
The Pope has intrinsic authority: He is not the Pope because he is infallible, he is infallible because he is the Pope.
Stephen Hawking has extrinsic authority. We don’t consider his science to be good because he does it, we consider him a good scientist because he has proven he does good science.
Appeal to applicable extrinsic authority* is a valid point in a rational argument. Appeal to any intrinsic authority is not valid unless the argument rests squarely on that authority, as does Catholic Theology on the Pope’s intrinsic authority.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Not a layman, but in order to really know what you’re talking about and to do it with the scientific method we’d have to reinvent the wheel for every new child. We don’t, we build on the discoveries of other’s and then make new conclusions based on new information in relation to what we already ‘believe’ to be true. The problem with young earth creationists is they already have the answer, “God created the world 10,00 years ago”…they then bend and discount anything else that doesn’t prove what they already know to be true.
I don’t what this to degenerate into another creationist thread. All I’m asking is, is it POSSIBLE we are too sure of ourselves?
As in: In the name of the Beaker, The Stirring Rod and The Test Tube?
Growing up I accepted my parents as the authority on color of sky, purpose of worms, need for honesty and there were others who I knew would tell me what was right or correct.
Later it was books and maybe TV, other reference texts; my high school and college books/texts.
Now? Heck. Who knows… I think we lost all “common sense” when those little holes in the wall could produce terrible burns - we have so many things in our lives that look tame enough but are horribly dangerous and fatal.
Getting into what is popularly known as science and we use whatever we hold as a system for testing “truth” in our heads (something we probably needed when we were being chased by big animals) and it is not sophisticated enough to easily determine the bias or all the information or the loopholes on the source we are reading or hearing.
That doesn’t stop a lot of us from giving an instant opinion on every topic under the sun, however.
So, yes, a lot of times I’d like to see the source and take a look at the math and see if I can match it up with something that fits my
“testing system for ‘truth’” other times I just need a while to mull things over!
When do I HAFTA take science on “faith” that is a good question.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
I “trust science” to the extent that it works and produces demonstrable results.
After just a few hundred years of scientific exploration, we have a huge number of things that would have seemed like magic just a short while ago. It has let us understand in greath depth things we previously used superstition to explain. If science only made untestable predictions and carefully rationalized things away in a nonlogical manner, I wouldn’t place much stock in it. But it has shown itself to work better than any other system for attaining an objective understanding of the universe we live in.
As for having to just “accept what we’re told”, to some extent that’s true. But once you obtain a sufficient depth of knowledge in one or two areas, it becomes clear that researchers in other areas are using the same basic approach that you know works. So I have to just take it on faith that all the researchers in, say, polymer chemistry (about which I know nothing whatsoever) are not in a big conspiracy to fool me. That doesn’t require too much faith, really - as long as they keep cranking out things that work, they must be doing something right.
Also, if you have a certain knowledge base, often you can evaluate what’s going on other fields at level which, while elementary, is sufficient to assure yourself they are pursuing it with sufficient rigor. Unfortunately, many times our schools today do not leave their students with enough of a background to make such assessments, who are then left grasping at invalid belief systems because they don’t know any better. When we graduate students from HS who have not been exposed to even the basics of physics, chemistry, calculus, and so on, it becomes much harder for them to separate the real science from the far more easily available pseudoscience. Compared to the general public, the SDMB has a very high percentage of people who can tell the difference.
Um… I believe this is called “Science 101” that kids learn from elementary school to as far as they want their education in a particular field to go, isn’t it?
**
Well, the scientific method says that if we are making new conclusions based upon something that is believed to be true, the latter piece of information is already considered a “fact,” as much as science can say.
Well, this one is a bit of a loaded question. Science is ALWAYS looking for new information, and if this information happens to say that something we all thought was a “fact,” then science has some rethinking to do.
This does not mean that science does not know what it’s talking about (which is what those ignorant about the scientific method will say), only that they are always looking to find evidence which supports or denies even the most accepted ideas. And they will change their ideas if evidence comes along that shows them to be erroneous.
So, science by definition is not “full of itself,” because it will (and has) admitted blunders, errors and (more often) new findings that refute accepted ideas. But that does not mean that it’s “wrong” either.
I don’t know if I am answering your questions well, however…
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two weeks, two days, 18 hours, 2 minutes and 38 seconds.
670 cigarettes not smoked, saving $83.76.
Life saved: 2 days, 7 hours, 50 minutes.
Here’s a “Great Debate” – what are THEY taking on faith? and the level of reference they provide. Is that what we should expect of each other on this board?
Not agreed by me. There is no limit to the depth to which it is physically possible to continue exploring a scientific question. The fact that other factors (the need to eat, sleep, earn a living, and the desire to do other things) may lead us to decide that, at some point, further investigation is fruitless might be interpreted as taking things on faith; but it is not required that we stop and take things on faith. Conversely, in some non-scientific arenas, there is a limit on how far you can investigate and, at some point, you indeed must stop and rely on faith. Not that I think there’s anything inherently wrong with faith…
“Um… I believe this is called “Science 101” that kids learn from elementary school to as
far as they want their education in a particular field to go, isn’t it?”
Common Satan, kids don’t have time to learn proof they just do what they’re told. “Ok, kids we have a thing called gravity… nevermind how we know, nevermind how it works, it just does…now to move on”.
Do you think you can demostrate how creatures DNA evolve using a test tube? Or prove what happens at the ‘Event Horizon’ using math?
But I digress, JonF and SingDad have convinced me…I can sleep again.
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two weeks, three days, 15 hours, 11 minutes and 21 seconds.
705 cigarettes not smoked, saving $88.16.
Life saved: 2 days, 10 hours, 45 minutes.