Does Science Really Deal In Reality?

@bestboy19 (5482)
United States
October 20, 2010 7:41pm CST
Richard Dawkins, in his debate with John Lennox at the University of Alabama at Birmingham on Oct. 3, 2007 said that, "science deals with reality...." British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says, "The 'Big Bang' was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics;" but Wun-Yi Shu an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. His model describes the universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end. If Richard Dawkins is correct and science deals with reality, what is the reality of the universe, Hawking's big bang inevitability or Shu's no big bang, no beginning and no end model?
1 person likes this
13 responses
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
23 Oct 10
Okay time to start with explaining the "Big Bang Theory" I have to say finally we are not going to be confusing Evolution with the "Big Bang Theory". Hawking supports the M-theory which is explained on the Science Channel the best but I will link to an article that explains it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsWJ8NywSk http://science.discovery.com/videos/master-of-the-universe-stephen-hawking-m-theory.html As to answer the question yes science has always dealt in reality because the scientific method requires it to. Darwin based his theory on what he saw and said those things look related and well now that Tech has come into it Evolution the theory he started has changed and adapted to the new discoveries as his didn't account for DNA or other forms of evidence as it did prove certain parts true and one being the Law of Natural Selection. As this discussion is covering Physics then I have to mention Newton which has the three laws of Physics. The proof of the "Big Bang Theory" or M-Theory as that is the one I am going to use for the rest of this post. Has proof for a single staring point in which the Universe was created as things are moving away from a central point in space which under the laws of physics. Primarily the first law of Physics which is Objects at rest stay at rest unless acted on by another force. This is also true of objects moving if an object is moving in a frictionless enviorment such as space with no other mass to act upon it. That object would move in the direction of the force in which is acting with it. In this case whole galaxies seem to be moving away from a single point. As for these two theories they don't do anything but prove more that science is always looking for new ideas on how the universe works dealing with what they can observe which is a part of the Scientific Method.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Thank you for sending the links. The video links were too short, so I watched the Parallel Universe and found it quite fascinating. If you have not watched it, you should. I believe you will find it interesting; and since you understand this better than I, perhaps you can tell me from where the membranes come?
@bird123 (10486)
• United States
21 Oct 10
Science does deal in reality,however when mankind does not have all the answers they patch the gap with beliefs.Science has discovered many many great things, however there are lots of patches. Those who search for knowledge slowly lose these patches by way of the facts.Discovery is the path we should all be taking.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Oct 10
Discovery can be fun and interesting, but sometimes I have to wonder if some scientist are trying to find the truth or what they want the truth to do.
@TonyPluto (172)
• United States
21 Oct 10
You're all idiots. God created everything 6000 years ago. The universe was just created to entertain the faithless. That's you. Science is only a clever way for the devil to trick your overactive imaginations. Just read your Bible and it will all make sense. And make sure to pray for the end of days everynight so the world will be destroyed and we can see jesus again.
• Belgium
21 Oct 10
Something tells me Tony is being sarcastic.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
23 Oct 10
I sense sarcasm in a major way and wow almost Troll like. I am awarding 10 internets to him/her.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Was there a answer to my question anywhere in this conversation?
• India
21 Oct 10
It is not right to say that science is dealing with reality. In fact science is questing after the reality. Science does not know the reality as yet, and for that matter it would never know because by the time it arrives at the reality, new horizons appear and the science begins once again to quest after the new realities.
• India
23 Oct 10
To all those who do not believe in God to them God is trying to reveal himself through science. Those who believe in God they know him through common sense. Those who do not believe in him will know him through science. They have taken a longer route to reach him.
• India
24 Oct 10
And what is that Universal Impersonal force may I ask? By any chance by the word impersonal do you mean something neutral or lacking distinguishing quality or characteristics and yet having a force. Please explain I am curious to know.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Oct 10
Science does keep searching. I believe that is why they keep the word, "Theory." They know that every discovery they make can negate a previous discovery; but they also want to be perceived as knowing, and so they use the word reality. I think some of them are bending over backwards to disprove God. So far it hasn't worked, and it never will. Thank you for responding.
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
21 Oct 10
True science does deal with reality. True science can be studied and experiments can be performed for research and by this activity we come to understand scientific facts. The examples you are talking about from the debate are not science in that sense. They are ideas, hypothesis, theories and opinions. Origin of the universe and evolution of man are two areas where people pretend that they have science, when they clearly do not. The Bible is very clear about the origin of the universe. Read Genesis 1 - 3. Why is this true? Because it was written by God and he was there!
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
21 Oct 10
Let me know when they can prove the big bang theory using the Scientific Method. Until then it is a theory only.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Oct 10
I do find it interesting that science theory is perceived by some to be reality but Bible theory is not. Scientist are not so sure that they're ready to remove the word, "Theory," but they still say reality. I'm not sure how it can be both. Thank you both for responding.
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Many do tend to believe that science is absolute truth and fully reliable. But actually 'scientific truth' changes. For instance, the structure of an atom was for many years considered to protons, neutrons and elctrons. Only in more recent years was it learned that there are sub-atomic particles that have an effect in atomic physics. So in this case scientific truth that could be discovered and confirmed with scientific experiments changed. Imagine how much more likely it is for evolution and the big bang to be based on erroneous theory. Another example of science that is bound to change, is the idea that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming. In this case, however, the theory is coming more from pseudo-science and not true science.
@barehugs (8986)
• Canada
21 Oct 10
I believe its all a timeless misunderstanding. Time itself is Greatly Misunderstood, because it seems to go by, day after day on Standard Clock time. But its not like that at all. Time, rather than running horizontally (as we think), runs vertically, and this means that everything that has ever happened, and everything that will ever happen, is all happening right now. Thus, the So Called" Big Bang," is Beginning even as we speak, and ending, all in the same time.
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
21 Oct 10
Ok, I'll think about that, or not. Don't want to hurt my brain. I would say your definition of time being vertical probably applies to God, but for humnans time is demostrated by a course of life moving through history, present and future.
@dark_joev (3043)
• United States
23 Oct 10
What barehugs is getting at I think is called branch theory where every cross road of decision or chance exist in a separate time lines. The issues with Humans is that we are effected by all 11 dimensions of the Universe with the 4 dimensions of the universe affecting us the most visibility. This is better explained through M theory.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Barehugs, are you talking about parallel universes?
@Christoph56 (1508)
• Canada
22 Oct 10
Science is looking at what's out there, observing the variances, coming up with a hypothesis on how it got there, testing the hypothesis to see if it works or not, and if you get a series of tests that continuously comes out to the same result, then it's a theory. Things like the theory of gravity constantly works, and we can always test it, to see how fast things fall, and how objects rotate around eachother in the universe. We have mounds of proof that it's real, but its still considered a theory, because there may come something that can beat it out which we just haven't thought of, or haven't been able to do testing on. For the beginning of the universe, it's nearly impossible to do full testing on it. You can't fully recreate a universe beginning, and you can't go back in time to see how our universe came about. As of now, there are about 5 main theories, each with their own scientific backing and holes, about how the beginning of the universe happened. The idea that comes up the most, is the big bang, and there is lots and lots of proof pushing towards that... but it's still not complete, so it could still be wrong. In science, you have to be willing to admit that the idea you have could be wrong, and just about anything is possible. What Dawkins means by the fact that science deals with reality, is that to come to the conclusions, we need a hypothesis, then testing, then a conclusion, then a theory, which must be tested again and again. We can't just say, "it was some intelligent creator that made everything" because there is no possible testing, and absolutely no evidence, and it just puts a halt on the science, saying, "we can't know more". As for the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang has a lot of evidence behind it, from the radiation that came out evenly, to how everything is moving away from eachother, to the common trends of the universe, the Big Bang works... but it has holes, like, where did the bang come from? So, science keeps an open mind, and if someone can work out another theory mathematically or with testing, then it will be considered, too, until we get to see what really started off the universe, and be able to test that.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
I don't believe a creator puts a halt on scientific discovery of how our universe began. Why should it?
• Canada
26 Oct 10
Because if we just say, "Its a creator that is far above anything that we can possibly get to that created the universe" then there's no possible way to test anything, or have any other kind of hypothesis. If we say, "We don't know what created the universe" then there's room for more hypothesis and testing. This is whats already happening, with the idea of the big crunch, or super-string branes or universes inside of black holes, plus many more ideas that people have had over the years. With those, we can keep testing more, and come to conclusions. If you want, then, you can say that some creator made whatever is beyond the big bang, but then you run into the next halt... we can't study the creator, thats so far ahead of us, so we'll never know. We will know, you just have to keep on going, and not put the concept on something we can't possibly see.
• United States
21 Oct 10
Science really does deal in reality. The fact that Professor Wun-Yi has proposed an explanation at odds of Professor Hawking's doesn't challenge that, but confirms it. People will now examine both theories, how well they explain existing data, and what predictions they make. They will then test those predictions by experiment or further observation of the universe, and the results will either confirm the Hawking Model, the Wun-Yo mode, or neither -- in which people will look for a hypothesis that does an even better job of explaining the data.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
That is all well and good, but how do they justify calling a hypothesis or a theory a reality if a reality is a fact?
• United States
26 Oct 10
They don't call hypotheses or theories reality -- the are our best estimations of reality based on the information about reality we have. When Hawking said science deals in reality, he was referring to the fact that scientific method is demonstrably the best effective way of figuring out what that reality is precisely because there is always the possibility that someone will find data that requires a new hypothesis or a hypothesis that does a better job of explaining existing data.
• United States
23 Oct 10
Time is a measurement of change. Every moment we experience is the present. The present only last for a short time before another change occurs. The past is something that already happened. The future is something that hasn't happened yet. We are always in the present. When we see the stars we see it as it was in the past because if you can go there in the present you would notice how different the star looks. Time has no beginning and no end. There was always change and there will always be change. The big bang is as farthest point in time that can be measured so far. There is time before the big bang but it is unknown what occurred before the big bang.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Kind of makes me think of that saying, "Tomorrow never comes," because when what was tomorrow is here, it's now today. I would think that there would have to be something before the, "Big Bang," in order for something to go bang.
@flowerchilde (12518)
• United States
21 Oct 10
'Science' dealing with origins (of the universe and, or life) ceases to be science as "science" has to do with "observation".. My personal opinion? If, as I believe, an intelligence created the universe and life in six days by speaking it into existence, that had to be quite a lot of energy, a pretty big bang of activity..
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
So Flowerchilde, you believe in the, "Big Bank Theory." Islander, if science can only assume something to be true, how do you justify saying science deals in reality? Is the assumption of science any more real than the assumption of God?
@jamed28 (1909)
• Philippines
21 Oct 10
Earth Science is just glass of water from the ocean of knowledge. There are several things waiting to be discovered and most of them will never be discovered. What I am trying to point out here, is that human tend to discover the origin of things, but everytime they find an answer for a particular question tend another question or questions will arise. For example, Darwin theorized that human evolve from primates, so where did those primates, came from? and if ever they found an answer for that then another question will be ask. And human will just perish from this planet without knowing the source of it all.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
26 Oct 10
Chances are, science won't know in our lifetime which is reality, the Big Bang or No Big Bang. Must be frustrating to never be totally sure. Also makes you wonder where reality comes in.
@elmiko (6640)
• United States
21 Oct 10
of course science deals with reality mostly. some topics in physics though sounds so f*%ked up that it might as well be junk science.
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
25 Oct 10
Which of the examples I gave is reality? One says, "Big Boom," and the other says, "No Big Boom."
• China
21 Oct 10
Science is a subject trying to deal with reality.But the universe is changing everytime.As people know the world more and more,we can get the information which gots closer and closer to the reality.However,what is reality,maybe only God knows.