It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Faith in Science: Opening Agenda

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Science.. How much do we know, and how much do we believe based on faith alone? I'm going to be analyzing key points on a few key subjects to understand how much we as a collective race know for sure, and how much we as a collective race merely have faith in the Scientific Community to bring us and educate us on the things we do not have the time, or proper instruments to find for ourselves. This is slightly controversial, only because there are a lot of things that are undeniably true based on scientific research. Then there are things that we don't know really if they are fabricated, manipulated, or leading us to false truths. Maybe some things we are lead to believe true, we will find, are based on theory and are not actually scientific facts.

I apologize in advance if you do not agree with my statements, or my way of shaping this thread. I myself am having trouble thinking about how to say "This is that", and vice versa... It's hard to say whether we should question everything about it such as "How do we know these tests were really done, how do we know the true conclusions? How do we know they aren't just saying this or that?" In that alone one might say faith is required to believe in Science.. Unless you have tested and seen every aspect of it yourself.. you don't know. BUT I will, for the sake of time and argument, include the "Scientific Preachers" as part of "US". So anything they find.. should not be based on faith, or theory.. and if it does.. it will be put in the faith category, that's mostly what we are here to find out.."How much of what we are being taught, or told, about Science is actually based on faith?" For the most part I will be taking it one topic at a time, base by base to find the final conclusion. I am looking for a few things in every topic:


  1. 1. How the principles were founded.
  2. 2. How do they know FOR SURE?
  3. 3. Are they making assumptions?
  4. 4. Does this topic require "Faith" in any of it's aspects, in order to be true?



I have a few topics in mind, feel free to post on this thread about any topic you'd like to see discussed. Maybe comment about the project, or suggest way to go about it. Much thanks, expect a new thread soon on the topic of: Elements, Particle Physic, the Atom, ect.
edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   
s&f Looking forward to seeing the next post. This is something I for one have been curious about for a good while.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0nerabbit
s&f Looking forward to seeing the next post. This is something I for one have been curious about for a good while.


Glad to receive your first post.


Welcome!



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Just to be clear because its ATS and sometimes it is hard to know without asking.

Faith
1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
or
2)strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Because depending on which version of faith you mean it can lead to very different discussions.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

There are some things that you must understand and accept in order to understand science, theory, and the scientific community in context. These few things are simply facts, they are not points for debate.

First and most importantly, science is a process, not an ideology. There are scientists of many faiths and no faith, but science is transcendent of ideology, because it in and of itself is not one. No matter what ones faith may say, gravity still demands that all which goes up, eventually comes down, and there is no faith required to know that this is true. One can throw a ball in the air, and by observation know a measure of the truth.

Second, theory is not reliant on faith either. Theory, as it pertains to laypersons understanding of scientific matters, is simply a way for a scientist to infer from information thus far gained, what the next part of the puzzle of existence is, what shape it may take, what function it may perform in the context of the greater whole. Because science is not an ideology, but a mobile, evolving toolkit of understanding, theory will change according to results of practical experimentation, as and when that experimentation becomes physically and technologically possible. For example, the Large Hadron Collider device at CERN on the Franco-Swiss border, made it possible to gain a reasonable degree of certainty, that the theorised "God particle" (which I would have thought would be better described as a Mass Imparting Multiple Format particle, because of its function with regard to mass, and because it can be a wave and a particle in and of itself as far as I understand it, and because it is less confusing to those seeking to attach ridiculous notions of mysticism to all that science actually achieves) does actually exist, along with many other interesting discoveries.

But discovering nothing of the sort expected according to the theory put forward by Peter Higgs, would have been even more fascinating to scientists in the related field, because it would have meant that some other explanation for the existence and distribution of mass throughout particle physics, would have to have been theorised, which would have been strange because the theory fit what we already knew for sure, so well. Scientists, in the field of physics certainly, LOVE being mistaken, because they love mysteries, puzzles, solving them as near as they can or suggesting potential solutions. It is crack for the mind to these people, like food or drink, or air to them to be in a state of wonder, rather than certainty.

Now, we come to the place where there ARE some reasonable concerns that one might have about the legitimacy of certain scientific positions.

Science itself, as I have said, is merely a process, an intellectual toolkit for examining the universe around us, the better to understand a measure of it. The more we understand, the better we can navigate it, and the richer our experience of being within it becomes.

However, scientists are human. They have human needs, flaws and concerns, like any one of us. Scientists (and largely speaking I tend to believe that to a degree, physicists are not really included in this batch, for reasons that will become clearer the more I explain) occupy a very rarefied community of thinkers, and the operation of that community, the hierarchy within that community, is not very well understood by those outside of it, and who have little interest in it. I will attempt to provide some insight into this subject, so that we all understand which page we are on.

Scientists rely on their ability to publish research, theory or conclusions of experiments, in order to justify grants being given them by government, and in order to attract private donations of money to departments of universities and laboratories that they may be affiliated with. The more they publish, the more that those who hold purse strings will be willing to place funds in their hands, with which to conduct further research, fund the construction of new and better apparatus to run experiments with, and the better to increase the prestige of the laboratory or university or other group or establishment that the scientist in question is affiliated with.

Maintaining tenure at a university, or top positions in private laboratories, can often revolve around the same pressure to publish. It is a problem that scientists have voiced relatively recently themselves, as opposed to just being rumoured about by young, aspiring contributors to human knowledge, yet to find themselves on the ladder so to speak.

The trouble with this is, that the pressure to publish, to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of moneymen, is often greater than the pressure to produce solid scientific results, or perform research which has a function beyond fluffing ones portfolio, or even perform research which is valid in its conclusions. Without the money, the genuine science that people would like to do is often impossible, so even the most well meaning researcher may find themselves having to publish research which has little value, like a study into how many bananas you have to eat to get a Fukushima level of radiation exposure, for example. But it is important to recognise that this is not the case THROUGHOUT science as a broad topic. Physicists, particularly theoretical physicists, as I mentioned before, are not nearly so prone to this sort of thing. This is because a) there is a particular mindset which tends to be at play in the mind of a theoretical physicist, which is stubborn beyond measure and rigidly focused on the science, such that they simply would not NOTICE a funding gap, or care much that one exists and b) their work can be done on a blackboard in chalk for decades at a time if necessary, so all they are after is enough nutrition to keep them alive to do the work, and a place to live in while it is done.

But other scientists in other fields are not so lucky. Most scientific research and experimentation is expensive to run, because it involves either purpose built, newly engineered apparatus, or access to resources which cost money to run. The LHC is both expensive to run, and was expensive to maintain, but had the benefit of being fully funded by the time the people running it ever got to work on the site as far as I am aware. It also has the benefit of being apparatus which can be used to perform a whole host of experiments, not just one or two, but many, so it is value for money regardless of the insane expense involved with it.

So, to get back to your question about "faith", there simply IS no faith in science. There are those who have faiths who are also scientists, but scientists do not do anything on faith which pertains to science itself. HOWEVER...it IS necessary to trust the scientist performing the work, and that is where many people fall down.

Whether it is because a person is aware that scientists are as flawed as anyone else when it comes to being leveraged by money or position in their community, or whether it is because the observer simply distrusts science itself because their understanding of it as a broad concept or in a specific application is minimal at best, the issue is trust, not faith.


edit on 12-11-2016 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error removed.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Admittedly, this is what I meant when I said "about my terminology."

I'm leaning towards Definition one.. which i think was obvious by the lack of mention of religion completely.


a reply to: TrueBrit




These few things are simply facts, they are not points for debate.


I don't believe that's 100% true.




First and most importantly, science is a process, not an ideology. There are scientists of many faiths and no faith, but science is transcendent of ideology, because it in and of itself is not one. No matter what ones faith may say, gravity still demands that all which goes up, eventually comes down, and there is no faith required to know that this is true. One can throw a ball in the air, and by observation know a measure of the truth.


the way I am using the word faith has nothing to do with ideology, or religion. The faith is the trust we put into all things we consider scientific fact.




Theory, as it pertains to laypersons understanding of scientific matters, is simply a way for a scientist to infer from information thus far gained


IF the information thus far gain, is based on non-experimental means, but rather previous work. Then it's important to question the roots, and the integrity of the theory as it pertains, or may not pertain, to the actual reality of things. In other words, perhaps there was a mistake, or an unjustified inference or a concept that may have been over looked due to convince, that was accepted, which was non-experimental, that another used to form a new piece of the puzzle.




But it is important to recognise that this is not the case THROUGHOUT science as a broad topic.


Definitely . That's a great point I had not even thought about, the pressure to provide anything, rather than something of essence. I always wondered why studies were done to see why people ride buses... hehehe. On the right track, I am suggesting that perhaps some scientific research is intentionally (or not) fabricated, or altered inorder to provide a "proof" that is not actually proof.




Whether it is because a person is aware that scientists are as flawed as anyone else when it comes to being leveraged by money or position in their community, or whether it is because the observer simply distrusts science itself because their understanding of it as a broad concept or in a specific application is minimal at best, the issue is trust, not faith.


I tend to use the terms interchangeably, but faith does suggest something more than that.

What do you think about the quote from Nikola Tesla:




Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.


Because a big part of what I plan to mention relate to this quote in one way or another. To my knowledge, formulas are created to work to fit the appropriate situation. Albert Einstein was famous for many of his equations, E=mc2 for example. BUT was this, or many other formulas created under the assumption of something? Perhaps an assumption that may not be true but merely inferred, then taken as fact?

You can say "Because the formula works." But it only works because we have a predetermined notion of what is is suppose to solve. Do you get where I'm going with this point? I don't mean to say this is true in the case of E=mc2, but perhaps other formulas.

Always appreciate reading your posts, you put a lot of thought and effort and it's appreciated.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadCat


These few things are simply facts, they are not points for debate.


I don't believe that's 100% true.


Unfortunate for you, it is not required by your belief to be correct or true...

You can 'believe' all you want that 1 + 1 = 3, but your belief is not making it correct, is it? Your belief is just making you ignorant of the 'facts'.

One key word here would be meaning of theory in scientific world -


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.
Wiki* - en.wikipedia.org...


It does not require 'faith' to observe, test and confirm any scientific study, not even when you taking about fossils, life forms that predates us etc.



edit on 12-11-2016 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

Give some concrete examples of the point you are trying to make because as it stands, you're making vague statements and assumptions that I'm struggling to see correlated with reality.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Excellent post, mate!


I was going to post but after reading yours... no need



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   


there are things that we don't know really if they are fabricated, manipulated, or leading us to false truths


Why would you even think that scientists would be misleading when we have religious and political leaders who are completely devoted to misleading us 24/7/365???

This is like the argument that climate scientists can't be trusted because supposedly they are influenced by their grant money, but people being paid fortunes by business groups to spread lies are actually trustworthy somehow.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

The statement "All scientific proofs and theories are true undeniably." Is a laughable statement.
edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DeadCat

Give some concrete examples of the point you are trying to make because as it stands, you're making vague statements and assumptions that I'm struggling to see correlated with reality.


I actually don't have any at the moment. This is purely speculation.. for all I know it is all true. It depends what I find throughout my studies.

As I said before, and many times PERHAPS.. PERHAPS NOT. I'm not making any assumptions, and I haven't said that any of this is true. I'm simply stating MAYBE if you look into a specific area of science, you MAY find that even a sliver of what we may consider to be fact is actually based on theory, or speculation, rather than facts.

Which is much more interesting than saying "Stop what you're doing. Everything we know is true, don't question it."
edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

"Perhaps/perhaps not" isn't exactly a good basis for a discussion if there are no examples to examine.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DeadCat

"Perhaps/perhaps not" isn't exactly a good basis for a discussion if there are no examples to examine.


Examples to come in future threads.

But for now, the possibility that there may exist incongruities in science is the topic at hand.
edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DeadCat

"Perhaps/perhaps not" isn't exactly a good basis for a discussion if there are no examples to examine.


I am currently working on "The atom" and here is what I got so far (Only 1 point in the whole grand scheme of the atom really.)

If you haven't seen my opening thread click to see the premise behind what I hope to be a series of threads!

Today we are here to find out, how much of the science being taught, or told to us is actually fact. Today I bring the topic of the Atom, then I'll move on to the elements, and furthermore the physics behind the atom itself. What we are looking for in these topics are things being told to us as fact, when in reality, the basis is mostly in assumption, or theory. I figured the atom would be a good place to start!

Let's begin with what we are told about the atom itself. We'll move on from there to the history, the studies, and the reasoning, to find if perhaps what we are told.. may be mere speculation! How much do we KNOW about the atom.. and how much are we assuming?

What we Are Told to be True

The atom is the building blocks of ordinary matter.
Everything is made of elements, and furthermore, every element is composed of atoms.
Atoms do not behave like an ordinary mass, instead, at a quantum level, they act so differently, we had to redefine the way we track their movement entirely!
The structure and mass of a single atom is primarily in the nucleus.
The nucleus is composed of one or more protons, and usually an equal number of neutrons.
Protons are positive with electrical charge, electrons are negative, and neutrons are neutral.

The above is the basis for what in reality, determines what element is physically present. Now, I can hardly say I know anyone on earth who would disagree with these statements, unless to correct me on my terminology, but how did we come to know this information? A quick look into the history of the atom itself is in order with questions in mind. How do we as a species know the atom is structured in this way? How did we come to understand that the complexity of the atom, is what came to be known as the building blocks of our very material world and the elements that reside?

A Brief History

The idea of their existence and role was famously discussed among philosophers and theorists alike. It wasn't until the 19th century though that the study and science of chemistry left only one explanation: The Atom!

It first occurred to John Dalton, an English chemist, that he could use the concept of the atom to explain why elements always react in ratios of small whole numbers. It occurred to him that the only logical explanation for why the ratios remained consistently whole numbers, rather than portions, through out reactions was that there was an exchange during the reaction. An exchange of something smaller than the elements themselves.

(So far, this is still only theory, we have not discussed how they know only why they think they know.)

In 1827, botanist Robert Brown looked through his microscope at gains of dust floating in water. He noted that the way they moved on the surface was unpredictable, as if they were bouncing off of something that could not be seen in the microscope.

In 1905, Alber Einstein proved that what Robert Brown was observing, was molecules interacting with each other. Now, for some that would be good enough. But even Einstein should not be trusted without question. How did he prove this? Statistical physics. What is Statstical Physics? It's a form of maths which provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic or bulk properties of materials that can be observed.

French physicist Jean Perrin used Einstein's work to experimentally determine the mass and dimensions of atoms, thereby conclusively verifying Dalton's atomic theory.

Let's stop now and visit a quote by Nikola Tesla:




Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.


It sounds a lot to me like Robert Brown observed this happening... Albert Einstein comes 75 years later on with this equation analysis (That no one seems to know how it originated oddly enough? Seems to be a collaboration of many scientists through out history.) That provides insight into how/why this might occur. And them FROM that analysis of Albert Einstein, Jean Perrin determines the mass and dimensions of atoms.


At the very least, I will learn A LOT of stuff from doing this.. And so will everyone else from reading it. No harm, no foul, just speculation of known knowledge. If you read closely, and follow my tracks, I am not staying "This proves that what we are told about the atom is false." I'm merely suggesting that one part of what we know about the atom (It's mass and dimensions.) are based on an equation that was worked around the problem in order to solve the problem itself. There is also little to no explanation as to how he came about finding the mass and dimensions, other than that he took what Albert Einstein already "knew" inorder to come to the conclusions that he did.

Keep in mind, these types of things could not only be about money, but also about "being the first to..." or "Going in the history books"


edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

You seem to be conflating a lot of issues, as well as throwing in random Tesla quotes like they're infallible. They're not. Anyway...

Models aren't reality, they are abstractions of reality. No scientist will tell you otherwise. All models (scientific theories) are driven by data (scientific facts), which in turn is driven by experiment/observation.

You are quite incorrect in assuming that math has been substituted for experiment. It hasn't, as the last few hundred years of scientific progress quite clearly demonstrate. Math is a tool for devising models to describe reality based on what we know to be so given the conditions of the experiment (scientific facts). You can't really have one without the other so to imply that observation and experiment are not the cornerstones of the scientific method is false.

The very fact that the models we use have been used to make accurate predictions quite clearly demonstrates that there is a strong link between the theory and reality. Otherwise, most of the technology you use on a daily basis wouldn't work.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: DeadCat

You seem to be conflating a lot of issues, as well as throwing in random Tesla quotes like they're infallible. They're not. Anyway...

Models aren't reality, they are abstractions of reality. No scientist will tell you otherwise. All models (scientific theories) are driven by data (scientific facts), which in turn is driven by experiment/observation.

You are quite incorrect in assuming that math has been substituted for experiment. It hasn't, as the last few hundred years of scientific progress quite clearly demonstrate. Math is a tool for devising models to describe reality based on what we know to be so given the conditions of the experiment (scientific facts). You can't really have one without the other so to imply that observation and experiment are not the cornerstones of the scientific method is false.

The very fact that the models we use have been used to make accurate predictions quite clearly demonstrates that there is a strong link between the theory and reality. Otherwise, most of the technology you use on a daily basis wouldn't work.


Only in one aspect of science, perhaps in others not so much, that's what I aim to find out by looking into things.

I have a hunch that if I continue my goal, I will find AT LEAST 1 "Scientific fact" that is in fact, not scientific at all, or at the very least questionable in regards to how this "fact" became truth.

For the record, I did not plan on finding such things in the topic of the atom. (Maybe in the structure, or mass though.) They did not weigh the atom, or the proton, ect, on a scale and say "Ahh yess this is the mass" There is only formulas, to provide such information. (To my knowledge.)

The point to be made by using "The Atom" as the topic is really just to make clear how I will be tackling other topics, and what I'm looking for.


edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadCat

An example off the top of my head, is when Edison denounced Teslas AC current as dangerous and unsuitable for the transmission of power. However it was AC current that was ultimately adopted for transmitting power.

Also Einstein himself was at first shunned by the academic institutes of his time.

Science of itself is nothing but a tool to enable our understanding of how and why processes work. I think what you are addressing or questioning is not science itself, but the ideas, attitudes and beliefs of some of those who practice it.

Sure Scientists are meant to only present the unbiased facts, but it isn't always the case that they do. If your struggling to find examples I would recommend reading the book, A short history of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. There are plenty in there.

What Irks me most is and has nothing to do with science really, is planned obsolescence, and the with holding of better technology so crapier tech can be pushed to increase sales and profit.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: DeadCat


Science of itself is nothing but a tool to enable our understanding of how and why processes work. I think what you are addressing or questioning is not science itself, but the ideas, attitudes and beliefs of some of those who practice it.




A good example of what I knew, or feared rather, would come up about my terminology, since ATS is so anal about things when it comes to it. Yes, I am questioning peoples IDEAS about how science works, not science itself...
edit on 12-11-2016 by DeadCat because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join