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.

 

How Science Became A New Religion

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by golemina
 


Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!
No need to duplicate it.
Observed conditions (like the CMB) support the theory and not much really contradicts it.

And like the anti-science crowd likes to point out, it is "only a theory" after all. Unfortunately that same crowd doesn't seem to get the concept. No wonder they don't like it when they don't really understand what science does.

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Hey Phage!


I'm sorry Phage! If you CAN'T replicate it...

Then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD says it's a FAILED premise.



Next!




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 




One of the KEY components of the 'Scientific Method' is REPLICATION.

Replication of experimental data which provides evidence for the theory. It means checking to make sure the data is correct.


Then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD says it's a FAILED premise.

You really don't have a notion about it, do you?
edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

>'... the theories of physics can be proven with experiments. '

Cool!

Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!



(I'll wait here patiently while you do...)


Ill summarize what Phage said in laymans terms.

if the Big bang happened, there are certain things that would have to occur in the present day universe....and some of those things can be determined through experiments and already have been.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD says it's a FAILED premise.

You really don't have a notion about it, do you?

He took an intro science course and thinks he knows what it means.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by golemina
 




One of the KEY components of the 'Scientific Method' is REPLICATION.

Replication of experimental data which provides evidence for the theory. It means checking to make sure the data is correct.


Then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD says it's a FAILED premise.

You really don't have a notion about it, do you?
edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Hello again Phage!


Au contraire mon vieux!

I TOTALLY understand an ad hominem response...



Unless your REPLICATION efforts were so perfect... That I must have blinked when that momentary glitch... while the 'new' Universe synched.

In which case I guess Congratualations! are in order...

Please DO dance on the . of that needle!




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Thanks for your thread. Have you ever saw the documentary called "The other side of aids"? Your thread made me remind this documentary because it basically questions that HIV causes aids and even if HIV exists... Its really good.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Since I made a fuss about definitions earlier I suppose I should present a definition of religion now as the discussion has begun to trend towards absurdity in regards to what religion is or isn't.
www.merriam-webster.com...


Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


By some interpretations of the definitions then science can indeed be considered a religion (see 4a). This is valid certainly only in regards to specific areas of science for which solid proof is/has not been publicized or discovered.

For example dark energy can be considered a matter of faith in that it is what is actually accounting for the discrepancies in observed phenomena and mathematical models.

That is it is a matter of faith until proofs have been made.

www.merriam-webster.com...


re·li·gious
adjective \ri-ˈli-jəs\
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2
: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances


Religious would be a far more accurate definition of science.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Manula
 


No, I didn't see it, but thanks for telling me, I'll definitively check it out!



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
While I am a big proponent of science it does seem to have its own dogmas much like religion. Certain rules which can never be questioned. And when new theories arise they are usually met with contempt and ridicule. Certain scientific fields have yet to be discovered and will not be until science opens up more to "alternative" avenues of research and drops the idiocy that everything is set. Or known. I recommend "The Science Delusion" by Rupert Sheldrake. Very interesting read.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by swanne
 


That was true almost a century ago, when science wasn't crystallized into a "mainstream" dogma yet. The atom was yet to be understood.
You seem to have misunderstood my point. Einstein was not well received at first.



But today everything is assumed to be understood. As this paper in my OP points out:
You seem to be misunderstanding that paper. I don't think it says anything like that. It says that getting truly new ideas accepted is difficult. This has always been the case with science. It certainly doesn't claim that scientists assume everything to be understood.

Science is not a religion. It accepts nothing on faith alone.
edit on 6/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


All atheists and all scientists that believe that the origin of life is natural believe in the religion of science.

There is no scientific proof of Origins and all the evidence for evolution amounts to speculation. Until we see it, until we watch a species evolve, until we create life where there was no life. Until we explain why we live in a universe that appears to be dying, until we explain why the many phenomenon such as the distance of the moon to the earth, and the fact that it appears to be drifting away at a rate that suggest at least a young moon.

Until we explore the unexplainable based on current theory, nothing can be taken as fact when it comes to evolution or Origins or even the age of the universe. Science claims the universe is 14 billion years old. But even this is based on many combined assumptions. The first being the way it is is the way it always was. The big bang model itself creates too many holes in this theory to be accurate under any of the proposed Natural process that could have caused everything we see. Entropy, distribution of matter, temperature, backwards rotating galaxies, and black holes are all serious problems to science.

Currently there is only one theory that explains intelligent life beyond ID or Creation, and there still remains zero archeological evidence that one species ever distinctly evolved into another. The absence of the archeological evidence has even caused some scientist to start looking into sudden, rapid changes, because we simply don't see any slow changes happing today and there is no archeological evidence that can be considered proof that it ever happened.

Evolution apart from ID, is takes Origins by faith. All atheist that believe in evolution, must take the big bang or any other theory based on faith alone. Because ID and Creation are both plausible based on the evidence science has provided.

Yet it is taken by faith, what caused the first form of life is assumed to have happened by natural causes. So yes science does take things by faith and create their own religious views on the supernatural. Eliminating the supernatural is a religious view based solely in science. Without proof of Origins, Atheist will always be subject to a faith based system.

The scientific answer, Evolution and Origins are two different sciences. Ok so they even agree that to be an atheist is to have faith that one day we will be able to prove Origins apart from God. Evolutionists also believe the same thing without having any proof to suggest that their theory is indeed fact.

We cannot recreate evolution in a lab; we can only create environments in which we see adaptation. But we never see any life form actually transform from one species to another. Since the science of evolutions and origins cannot stand up to scientific method they are taken by faith alone.

Some may have been brainwashed to believe the "mainstream view" is the only acceptable view and thus taken what they learned in grade school to be fact. However, in sciences great race to eliminate the creator they accepted the first theory that seemed to prove that life could happen naturally.

However all the research from over the last 200 years has actually left science without the proof that they have been hoping for. Since they have no proof they must rely on faith alone.

I have read their theories and understood them. I spent over a year taking in every bit of information that was available. I have attempted to accept the logic of evolution but there are simply too many missing puzzle pieces that they simply do not have. Nor in my opinion will they ever find what they are looking for, because modern science is beginning to suggest that evolution may be impossible.

Science believes that the first instance of DNA occurred naturally. To me that is like saying the engine to the model T ford occurred naturally. DNA being of natural occurrence = faith.

Intelligence and emotions occurred naturally = faith.
14 billion years worth of stars occurred naturally = faith
The universe is dying, with no new matter created, but what we see happened naturally = faith
Live evolved from non life = faith
One species evolved from another species = faith

Age of anything more than a few thousand years old. Radiometric Dating, its known inconsistencies and its inability to account for the many natural occurrences that have already proven that the method is fallible = faith.

It takes more faith to believe in science than it does to believe in God. To believe in an intelligent creator that created intelligent life, is an intelligent conclusion. To conclude that it is possible for something intelligent to arise from nothing, that is faith.

Science = faith, when you talk about Origins, Evolution, and dating methods. But many who don't know as much as I do still believe these things as fact. Even I am smart enough not to claim facts about my religion that cannot be proven.

When will scientist give my intelligence the same courtesy that I extend to them? All things are possible, but only what is proven should be taught as fact. My religion is based on faith and I never try to suggest that it is not. Science has claimed that what they cannot prove is fact. Calling something a fact before you can prove it so does not make it a fact, it is faith.

Science has become a "mainstream" religion.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality.

Change supernatural to the environment we see and change spirituality to morality and you have the religion of science.

edit on 9-6-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by golemina
 


Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!
No need to duplicate it.
Observed conditions (like the CMB) support the theory and not much really contradicts it.

And like the anti-science crowd likes to point out, it is "only a theory" after all. Unfortunately that same crowd doesn't seem to get the concept. No wonder they don't like it when they don't really understand what science does.

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So you must believe in Dark Matter = Faith, since it is only a theory and only necessary if you believe the big bang.

Dark Matter is the God of the Big Bang. Something that is completely invisible but yet exerts a force on what we see even though we can't prove it really exists. Sounds a lot like religion. Definitely = faith.

Here are some more problems with the Big Bang since you don't seem to believe thier are any.

www.biblelife.org...
www.lyndonashmore.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by golemina

>'... the theories of physics can be proven with experiments. '

Cool!

Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!



(I'll wait here patiently while you do...)


Ill summarize what Phage said in laymans terms.

if the Big bang happened, there are certain things that would have to occur in the present day universe....and some of those things can be determined through experiments and already have been.







And for everything that can't be explained you need God, but science calls its improvable God "Dark Matter"

Kind of funny that God is considered "light" and what is against God is called "Darkness"

Science is looking for the darkness when it should be looking for the light.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage. Many physicists, not just those in my OP but even Stephen Hawkins himself (I think it was in his book A Brief History of Time, but I'm not sure - I read too much books of him), criticize the mainstream method. It's not that this method is wrong, it's just that it is quite imperfect. Its current working is not unlike a judiciary system in which one would be considered "guilty until proven innocent". Sure, this works fine if you're trying to protect accepted orthodoxy from falsification But it works not that great for advancement. Take for instance the recent discovery about something as simple as the water displacement angle behind a travelling boat. Since Lord Kelvin's time, it has always been assumed such angle was constant, at 37°. Because this angle was presented as a truth in the textbooks, instead of an assumption, since Kelvin's time. And thus alternatives were dismissed, and it took about one century and a half before science community realized their model about water displacement angle was wrong (in fact, the angle is related to the speed of the boat). The model of something as simple as the angle behind a boat was actually wrong for more than a century, up to 2013, because of the system's tendency to reject alternatives. We are not talking about big cosmological theories or subatomic events, we are talking about something as simple (and verifiable) as water displacement, here, on Earth's seas. If the system takes one century and a half to consider such a simple (and, I must emphasize, VERIFIABLE) proposition, how can you expect some of us to feel reassured when bigger, less-easily-verifiable propositions (like cosmological theories or particle models) are in play within the system? Don't you smell something fishy when it takes mainstream a whopping century before realizing they were wrong about something as simple? That means, until 2013, no serious efforts were made by mainstream authorities to verify the model, and/or no grants/credit were allowed to those who challenged mainstream's assumption. Now, what does that tell us about the theoretical aspect of mainstream physics?



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Whoa, thanks for the warm greetings!


Originally posted by golemina
I've personally been discussing (read: RANTing
) this very issue for many years... (You can pick up some of my many heretics views using the convenient search function
).

No need - I just gotta click on your avatar and go directly to your profile
much quicker that way. Yeah, I would tend to support scepticism too about global warming - although I would very much favour global warming over global cooling (studies show global warming would actually be beneficial), the result of my investigations are unfortunately in favour of the latter.


I was at times past a harsh critic of mismatching sock boy... Albert Einstein...

And was squarely of the opinion that the ONLY thing he got right was the following:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

But after dealing with the 'Science' establishment is SO many delicious ways... much contemplation of the above statement... Reading some of his discussions with Velikovsky...

I have mixed feelings about Einstein. Some of his work I am still trying to fully appreciate, but also I strongly support his opinions about quantum model.


It is one seriously fabulous day today in Seattle... sitting in the 'Goldie Locks zone', in my backyard
, watching these ginormous clouds floating by... thumbing their noses at Newtonian physics... and ***cough*** Gravity!


Well keep up the good work! And NEVER stop learning. The day you stop learning, and pretend you know it all, is the day you'll become like some ATSers around here... and you know which ATSers I'm referring to.


It actually took me a rather strange dream to realize that. I am lucky I had this dream. Otherwise I would have turned out very different than who I am now. Silly how some parts of the Universe can be influenced by so (apparently) insignificant factors... It seem a real physicist has to be a bit of a philosopher too. Just like in the old times...

Well see ya on the board!



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Many physicists, not just those in my OP but even Stephen Hawkins himself (I think it was in his book A Brief History of Time, but I'm not sure - I read too much books of him), criticize the mainstream method. It's not that this method is wrong, it's just that it is quite imperfect.
It's Hawking.
Who ever claimed the scientific method is perfect? On the other hand, God is perfect, right? Isn't that what religion (Judeo-Christian religion anyway) teaches?


Take for instance the recent discovery about something as simple as the water displacement angle behind a travelling boat. Since Lord Kelvin's time, it has always been assumed such angle was constant, at 37°.
I'm not aware of what you're talking about but if your point is that science changes with the advent of evidence...yes. Yes it does, that's what the entire premise is. Does religion do that? Seems like the answer is always "God did it."


The model of something as simple as the angle behind a boat was actually wrong for more than a century, up to 2013, because of the system's tendency to reject alternatives.
So who protested in those 100 years? Who was rejected, exactly? What alternatives were presented?


That means, until 2013, no serious efforts were made by mainstream authorities to verify the model, and/or no grants/credit were allowed to those who challenged mainstream's assumption.
Or, apparently by anyone else. Or were there upstarts?
Do you expect science to completely examine every bit of every foundation on an ongoing basis? That doesn't seem like it would allow much in the way of progress.

I just tracked down what you are talking about. The wake of a boat. Earth shaking. The foundations of physics are in danger. But the angle isn't 37º and apparently Kelvin has not been discarded. Yet.

Others in the field are sceptical. Yuming Liu, a marine hydrodynamicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has several misgivings about the work, including the fact that the numerical simulations consider only the "near field" region directly behind the ship, rather than the whole area over a distance of several wavelengths, which he says biases the results. Not only that, he is troubled by the researchers' argument that a ship cannot excite waves longer than the hull. "You just can't make an assumption like that," he cautions.

physicsworld.com...
So it seems that Rabaud has more work to do before we throw Kelvin's formulas out the window. As it should be. He made the claim, he needs to answer the questions.



edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by golemina
 


Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!
No need to duplicate it.
Observed conditions (like the CMB) support the theory and not much really contradicts it.

And like the anti-science crowd likes to point out, it is "only a theory" after all. Unfortunately that same crowd doesn't seem to get the concept. No wonder they don't like it when they don't really understand what science does.

edit on 6/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So you must believe in Dark Matter = Faith, since it is only a theory and only necessary if you believe the big bang.

Dark Matter is the God of the Big Bang. Something that is completely invisible but yet exerts a force on what we see even though we can't prove it really exists. Sounds a lot like religion. Definitely = faith.


No it's not at all like religion. Dark matter theory makes quantitative predictions about properties of motion which result in specific statistical consequences. These properties have been verified in prospective astrophysical observations and compared to results from alternative hypothetical explanations. So far dark matter has passed all the observational tests and fits data better than any other theory. It's missing direct, specific particle physics identification.

History: Superconductivity was an observed fact for decades, which made clear phenomenological predictions, but didn't have a full microscopic quantum mechanical theory for a long time (and certain newer forms still do not).


Here are some more problems with the Big Bang since you don't seem to believe thier are any.

www.biblelife.org...
www.lyndonashmore.com...


biblelife.org isn't going to explain squat about distribution of microwave background fluctuations, which are an observed fact. Physics does.

Here's a problem with people who say that "science == religion" and all that. (it's not true: science is magic that works, and we've figured out how to get more of it by working).

If they find some of the 1% which is not fully explained by science to the standards of the rest of the 99% which is well explained, they take that as justification to dump the 99%, plus the 1%, and the method to figure it all out in favor of unsupported nonsense.
edit on 9-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 




If they find some of the 1% which is not fully explained by science to the standards of the rest of the 99% which is well explained, they take that as justification to dump the 99%, plus the 1%, and the method to figure it all out in favor of unsupported nonsense.

To put it simply:
Science doesn't claim to know everything. That doesn't mean it doesn't know anything.

But religion seems to have the answer, in three words.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 




No it's not at all like religion. Dark matter theory makes quantitative predictions about properties of motion which result in specific statistical consequences. These properties have been verified in prospective astrophysical observations and compared to results from alternative hypothetical explanations. So far dark matter has passed all the observational tests and fits data better than any other theory. It's missing direct, specific particle physics identification.


There are quite a few flaws with the dark matter theory, that is why no one teaches it as fact. The first link is in simpler language for anyone who wants to see for themselves.

space.about.com...
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
edit on 9-6-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
There are quite a few flaws with the dark matter theory, that is why no one teaches it as fact. The first link is in simpler language for anyone who wants to see for themselves.

space.about.com...
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
The first source says:


There is a mountain of evidence that dark matter is actually a form of matter in the Universe. But there is still a lot that we don't know. I'd say the best answer is that there appears to be something, call it dark matter or whatever, that is lurking out in the Universe that we have yet to measure. The alternative is that something is seriously wrong with our theory of gravity. That, while possible, would itself have a difficult time explaining all of the phenomenon that we see in galaxy interactions. Only time will tell.
Personally I don't see a problem with that, in fact it looks like something I'd write. So if we can all agree on that, then we have no disagreement about dark matter. Nobody claims it's been discovered, just that there are lots of observations that "something" appears to be there that we haven't yet found.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Religion, many beliefs, the scientists, the christians etc, the atheists. I look at it like this humans have been here, documented history, for thousands of years. The universe is infinite compared to this. Science is the begining of understanding the universe. If you believe in GOD then it is the begining of understanding GOD. If you don't believe in GOD then is is the beginign of understanding the universe. Either or can't be proven until you understand the universe. We have only been here for how many thousands of years?




top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join