myLot philosophy 101 : belief and science

@topffer (42156)
France
December 15, 2018 10:51am CST
I have noticed that many people are approaching science like if it was religion, and are considering scientific theories like dogmas that cannot be questioned. If it was the case we would still live in caves and we would have not yet discovered the wheel. Belief tries to respond to the question «Why ?»: Why myLot exists ? Why myLot is so wonderful ? Eventually beliefs may try to respond to metaphysical questions : Why can I login only to my account and not to another ? Is there a life out of myLot ? The responses to these questions are collected in writings that cannot be questioned : FAQ, guidelines... Science does not care about «why ?» but about «how does this works ?» To understand how it works science uses tests and these tests need to be reproducible : if an alien scientist joins myLot and clicks on «respond» 100 times, a response box will open 100 times, so this alien may perhaps enunciate the theory that a response box opens on myLot when one clicks on «Respond». «Perhaps» because a scientist always doubts, and it has been verified only 100 times, not an endless number of times. A theory is not something written in the marble, it is considered true as long as the results are matching with what the theory tells. If, one time only, one gets a different result, the theory is abandoned and another one is enunciated to include this different result. A scientist can never tell «this is true because it is scientifically proven», or «this is BS because it is not scientifically proven». The truth in science is always temporary, there are no dogmas. I hope you understood why one should not confuse belief and science. (Written while having my afternoon tea)
5 people like this
3 responses
@rebelann (111194)
• El Paso, Texas
15 Dec 18
I suppose that many people feel that since science will disprove earlier scientific results that it too is simply a belief, it is a shame that those people do not realize that what scientists thought they proved in the 1970s has been disproved due to new discoveries.
2 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
15 Dec 18
You are thinking at something specific ? In many domains our knowledge is not as deep as people are thinking, and you have not to dig a lot to find the limits of what we know. It lets a lot of space for new theories.
2 people like this
@rebelann (111194)
• El Paso, Texas
15 Dec 18
Not really @topffer but it does come to mind that those 'facts' we believed in the 1970s like margarine is healthy but butter is not have since been reversed.
2 people like this
@sabtraversa (12951)
• Italy
15 Dec 18
@topffer Another good point. Science can be easily corrupted, research requires funds and not all funders are unbiased. Yay, conspiracy theories! But it makes a lot of sense.
2 people like this
@much2say (53958)
• Los Angeles, California
24 Dec 18
My question is how did I go through this month missing your posts on myLot ? There are times when I swear up and down that I've checked profiles and did not see anything new and then one day I discover I must've been on another planet. I am actually glad you wrote this because there is something I've been meaning to ask of your opinion for a long time but it never came up . It has to do with science and belief. In short (if I can), we saw a video (I'd have to find it again or maybe you've seen it) about archaeology proving truth to biblical stories, biblical archaeology I guess. In this case it was how the old theories about it taking many, many years of erosion to carve out canyons may not have happened that way . . . that it's possible there was some massive water (great flood) that layered up the earth in a very short amount of time that we can't comprehend, at least in the way of observation in our time. I don't know if I am explaining it well, but I thought it was highly interesting. One of the points being that when we have traditional theories - it is taught as fact and we simply believe it - and then we don't question it anymore because it is treated like a closed book. But interesting how questions can always shake up science - but it can do the same for beliefs. I don't know where I'm going with this, but a Merry Christmas to you topffer!
1 person likes this
@much2say (53958)
• Los Angeles, California
25 Dec 18
@topffer I am still looking for that video - Hubby says title had something to do with Genesis and fact. I guess there are many links online using Grand Canyon as a visual example . . . just quickly something like this one . I find this stuff interesting anyway - not that I am particularly religious or scientific - just "curious". Hope you are having a Happy Christmas . . . it is now Christmas morning .
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/no-slow-and-gradual-erosion/
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
25 Dec 18
@much2say I will look at it and comment back later. It is 6 1/2 PM and the night is already there. Time difference.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
24 Dec 18
Posting here depends of my mood and free time, you may have checked my profile during a period of absence. It is not important anyway. Biblical archeology is usually used by archeologists only for the archeology of the Holy Land, but I see what you mean. Only an erosion during thousands / millions of years can explain the canyons and large valleys surrounding some rivers. If a tsunami or a flood was covering earth of water for a short period of time, we would not be able to prove that it happened after a few decades with what we know today. Does this respond to your question ? Merry Christmas to you and your family!
1 person likes this
@sabtraversa (12951)
• Italy
15 Dec 18
Exactly!!! That's what I believe too, a good person of science must always be curious, inquisitive... and skeptical above all. Theories are theories, not facts or truths. Firmly believing in a theory is no better than religious faith. And yes, belief and science can get along in a person's mind. We need both somehow.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
15 Dec 18
I agree completely with that. I faced 2 times here a member having a dogmatic approach of science. It is plain wrong, and I decided to write this short discussion to explain it.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42156)
• France
15 Dec 18
@sabtraversa This one does not believe in deadly sins.
1 person likes this
@sabtraversa (12951)
• Italy
15 Dec 18
@topffer I see. Yup, it happens quite often. It doesn't help that science fanatics don't believe in the deadly sin of pride.
1 person likes this