Originally posted by undo
this is actually an incorrect statement.
you have to start with a premise--which is a belief, that based on your current data, xyz is true, but you can't prove it yet, so you must use
empirical procedure to arrive at a satisfactory answer. problem is, empirical procedure is rife with areas that can be abused, such as:
1) is the scientist believed simply because of who he is in the social order.
2) is the scientist believed because his evidence literally does indicate his premise.
3) is the scientist "believed" because the establishment is using it as a means to hide a deeper meaning or revelation.
Actually, you start with a hypothesis. Which is typically your best guess about how something works, or why it works the way it does, or what will
happen if you do something. It's not a belief that you are right, it is a guess that you set about proving or disproving as the case may be. The
scientific method, I think that is what you are talking about anyway, is how scientists (and others for that matter) go about testing the
Scientists aren't just "believed" because of who they are, their studies and experiments are proven true or false and are duplicated by other
scientists to see if they get the same result. Things get checked by numerous people before they are called theories.
If the evidence proves the hypothesis true, then yeah it makes sense to say the hypothesis was true. I don't understand the point you are making
What deeper meaning and revelation are you talking about? Lost me there too.
based on their own rigid set of laws, which they use to keep info from being accepted on topics that haven't been released to the public yet
or aren't in keeping with the agenda of those who pay the bills, most of what is passed off as "proven" is little more than the original premise.
That rigid set of laws, as you call it, is to prevent crack-pots from claiming outlandish things and having the world think it's true. If the
original hypothesis is true, why would anyone want to cover it up? If the original hypothesis is false, they keep working until they figure out what
you really don't want a list of all the "facts" of science that have been proven inaccurate or patently untrue do you?
This was covered by my statement:
Science is a set of facts, that change as we learn new information.
That's called admitting you are wrong, something you don't find often when it comes to religious beliefs. In my book, admitting you had something
wrong and that the facts weren't quite straight before is much better than saying "No, this is right. I don't care what you say. It's right cause
it's in this book."
Yes science has been wrong about things, but we learn new things every day. Some that show a previous theory was wrong, or maybe even just slightly
off, and some further prove previous theories. What is wrong with new information?
I don't have to believe in gravity for it to affect me. I don't have to believe that water is wet, for it to be true. I don't have to believe that
if I fall while walking a tight rope that there will be a net to catch me, for there to be one.
With religion, Christianity for example since that was the topic of this thread, I have to believe in God to be saved. I have to believe Jesus is my
savior to go to heaven. Etc. etc. etc.
Now a list of religious beliefs that have been proven inaccurate or patently untrue, that would be something I'd like to take a gander at. Point
being, scientists can, and do, say they were wrong about something. They don't have to believe the hypothesis is true for it to be true. They don't
just claim they are right because they believe they are right and everyone accepts it without question, which is something that happens frequently in