Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Nothing in science can be proven by the technical definition of proof. For something to be proven it would completely discount the possibility that it might be even slightly wrong. Proof is the exclusive domain of formal logic and mathematics. The entire scientific method is based on the fact that any theory could be wrong, and must therefor be continually be tested, and if it should ever fail even one test, it must be denounced and replaced by a new theory that can withstand that test as well as any other. The more tests that something passes the more accurately that theory fits the actual workings of the universe, but even after millions of tests it might not be perfect, but it should be damn close.
Science and math are two different disiciplines. I am not sure why there is all this talk about mathematical proofs and scientific theories.
Because one of the big arguments that creationists use against scientists is that evolution is not proven in the mathematical sense and therefore is no more valid then ID. You and I can see that argument is like saying that an apple is not blue in the grapefruit sense and therefore is no different then a boat, but they can not because they have the wrong meaning for those words. So instead of arguing using their nonsensical definitions you have to explain that NO scientific theory can be proven in the mathematical sense, and it in fact does not even make sence to try to do so, and then try to explain how science does work.
However, all this discussion here especially making statements that science is somehow far from concrete is way off base and more than likely spoken by those with little science background. If our science was not solid most of what we do everyday would be chaotic.
But it is important to remember that theory is not absolute, because their next argument is going to be about theories that have changed over time. Once again this is their ignorance of the use of the scientific method that leads to this mistake of belief.
Scientific theories have something like mass, the more evidence you collect in favor of it the less likely it is to change. In the rare circumstance that a long held scientific theory does change, the more evidence it had the less it will need to change.
Basically the way it works is that the more evidence you have that a theory is correct the less often and less dramatically it will change. Not because scientists have investiture in it, but because for it to have been able to make all the predictions and pass all the tests to gain that body of evidence it had to be pretty close to right.
It is the concept of diminishing returns.
The debates that science is based on theory and that theory is not proof and without proof you have nothing factual and therefore science is not real or true, et al were created by pseudo-intellectuals defending their religions.
Agreed, and then taught to people who mistakenly accepted their word as coming from a point of authority.
Agreed, and then taught to people who mistakenly accepted their word as coming from a point of authority.
Science is based on theory, but theory does not mean what the creationists think it means.
Theory is not proof, but proof is not what the creationists think it is.
After that the rest of the argument is baseless.
Now onto the different religions and how I feel they should all be taught in school. Obviously these are going to be a similar 'survey' style method that almost all classes are up until the college level. In high school Biology, you aren't really learning that much in depth on Biology at all...you get a decent understanding of it though and a good preparation for your college level courses should you undertake those.
I am not completely opposed to religion being taught in schools. It is a part of any decent social studies curriculum. I just think that we need to be careful about how much emphasis we put on it. It is a subject that can eat up all of your resources because no matter how much of it you teach it will always be a highly controversial subject that people will get upset about, and when dealing with a democratically controlled bureaucracy like the school system they have a really bad tendency kowtow to popular demand.
I don't know where people come up with there are 1000's of major religions or even 100's. Counting every different type of Christianity or Islam or Jewish group may be part of the cause, but in the end they are the same religion.
There are about a dozen major religions in the US not counting all the denominations of Christianity. Below that there are hundreds of religions that have anywhere from a couple hundred to tens of thousands of members. It is really hard to get a good count of how many members some religions have because many people do not wish to disclose their religion out of fear.
There are 20 or so top level 'religions' as accepted by most people...teaching 20 or so religions in a general survey type course should not be that problematic and I believe the benefits would outweigh any disadvantages as we approach a world level economy/business market.
I recently heard that Islamic people are truly cannibal and a couple others in the crowd cursed the 'damn arabs' and 'knew that was true'.
These are the exact people that would protest the most aginst a fair survey class on religion, even if it was an elective. Those willing to take such a class probably don't really need it.
Facebook
Twitter