How a Scientific Theory is Created
Lets see how a scientific theory is created by looking at a specific example, The Theory of Gravity. This will show how a theory evolves, is refined and gradually becomes more and more mainstream, and more useful at producing accurate results .

From the early days of humankind, people observed that things fall towards the ground and rocks roll down hills, and they watched the sun and moon rise and set every day. Nobody gave it any great amount of thought, it was just considered the natural order of things. So all was well. They didn't understand the motions of stars and planets - again it was just the way things were!

Then people began to try to explain things like the motion of stars, planets, sun and moon, and came up with theories which involved celestial spheres which moved around the earth. They were able to test their theories by predicting eclipses and stellar motion quite accurately. So all was well. But were still a few who wondered why the planets moved backwards every so often (called retrograde motion).

Then came some folks (like Galileo) who made some observations and some measurements, and proposed a theory that the heavenly bodies, and even the earth moved in orbits around the sun. He of course was laughed at and forced to recant (under penalty of death). But eventually peer review by fellow scientists showed that he was right. So all was well. But there were those who wondered why the heavenly bodies moved this way.

Then along came one of the most brilliant scientists who ever lived. His name was Isaac Newton. He also made observations and measurements of planetary motion, but proposed a new theory to describe and predict how it all works. His theory was called The Theory of Universal Gravitation. It was very simple really. Without getting too technical, it said that every body attracted every other body by a FORCE which was proportional to the product of the their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. What a beautiful theory! It was tested over and over and always worked. So all was well. There was a slight problem with the orbit of Mercury, but surely that could be explained eventually.

Then along came a genius named Albert Einstein. He was a theoretical physicist, he did not do experiments and he seldom looked at the experiments of others. He mostly just thought about things, and he thought about other peoples theories. One day, in 1915 he came out with a theory which people now call The Theory of General Relativity. He basically said Newton was wrong! Gravity is not a force, it is a property of curved space-time. Einstein's theory does not give significantly different results than Newton's, but whenever they are in conflict, Einstein's always gives better results. So all was well. There are some problems with Einstein's theory that occur when trying to explain the first few fractional nanoseconds after the Big Bang. But when a more comprehensive theory comes along to refine Einstein's, it will give marginally better results than Einstein's.

This is how scientific theories are formed and how they evolve. They are created. They are peer tested. They are found wanting. They are then refined. Over a period of time they get better and better at making predictions. They are never absolutely right. They never are absolute windows to reality. But each subsequent refinement to theory improves our ability to measure or to predict.

Einstein's theory may be a refinement of Newton's, but Newton's was accurate enough to get people to the moon and back and to land spaceships on the surface of Mars.

Thank you, Iwonder. As always, you give us so much information in a manner in which we lay people can understand some more complex areas of study...c

iwonder is a god among ants on wondercafe, i think... thanks again for such an insightful, knowledgable, yet respectful post, iwonder.

you are my kind of scientist!!

I think that if you look at the following site you will notice the necessity of experment. You can also see the question of bias.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method
Introduction to the Scientific Method
I. The scientific method has four steps
II. Testing hypotheses
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
VI. Conclusion
VII. References

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses
As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion
The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References
1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

iwonder said:
You can do thousands of experiments to prove a theory, but it only takes one failed experiment to disprove a theory.
_________________________________________________________________
What a romantic view of science. Too bad it's not true. We don't know how many experiments it takes anymore to disprove a theory, but it stopped being one a long, long time ago. What happens now is if someone has an experiment going against the ruling paradigm, they assume they did something wrong with the experiment and they bury their research, as almost no one will publish a result going against the ruling paradigm, and if they get a null result for the ruling theory (showing absolutely no effect) it's assumed their test wasn't strong enough to pick up the result that it should have.

Also, scientists hate to have things disproved. They do. That's why you see a paradigm shift take about a generation, as the old scientists who wouldn't give way die off and let some new ideas in. They don't hope for that as some kind of validating part of their existence. They defend their theories like their children, and once one is accepted, very little will make them disbelieve it.

Ok - so we're going to throw out the scientific method because it is not perfect. What are we replacing it with? I'm truly interested in knowing about this system that is better. Please enlighten me...c

Yes, but after Einstein came Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Planck with their Quantum Mechanics and the Principles of Complementarity and Uncertainty. The observer, that peace disturber, threw the proverbial wrench into the neatly meshed gears of the Newtonian clockwork universe and brought it to a grinding halt.

The truth of any observation, even scientific observation, is determined by the viewpoint of the observer. Even the most basic scientific observation has two different viewpoints and truths, each one of them equally true. In more complex obervations there are more possible viewpoints and truths, every one of them equally true, and in something as complex as the human experience there are a virtually limitless number of possible viewpoints and truths.

And who determines the viewpoint of the observer, and thus the truth of the observation? The observer, of course! The truth of any observation is arbitrarily created by the observer.

Where does that leave us? A reality devoid of absolute truth?

The Principle of Complementarity, which is generally agreed on to be the basic principle underlying the universe, virtually dicates that the universe which we analyze is in a state of synthesis. The capital T truth is that reality is a unified whole, but analysis cuts that whole into fragments. No matter which way we slice it--and we can slice it any old way--we still get only fragments, The unified whole is absolutely true, but it cannot be analyzed or conceptualized and still be absolutely true! It can only be experienced in the pure unconceptualized experience.

So, if we are after ultimate Truth, with a captilal T, then we should immerse ourselves in the pure, unconceptualized experience, and take it from there.

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

--- origionally posted by frommian ---

What a romantic view of science. Too bad it's not true. We don't know how many experiments it takes anymore to disprove a theory, but it stopped being one a long, long time ago.
___________

what a romantic view THAT is!! come on, in todays society, it doesn't even take a scientific experiment to disprove a theory!! for example, the whole 'MMR vaccine gives you autism!!' thing... there hasn't even BEEN an experiment that proves a connection between the vaccination and autism, yet we have a huge movement in existence which believes it to be true!!!

--- origionally posted by frommian ---

Also, scientists hate to have things disproved. They do. That's why you see a paradigm shift take about a generation, as the old scientists who wouldn't give way die off and let some new ideas in. They don't hope for that as some kind of validating part of their existence. They defend their theories like their children, and once one is accepted, very little will make them disbelieve it.
_________________

well DUH...

if i spent all kinds of time, effort, and money on something, NO DOUBT i'd fight to the bitter end to make it worthwhile!! which is WHY the scientific community has peer reviews. just because you WANT something to be true doesn't make it true in the face many other scientists who discredit what you are trying to say.

Hi Frommian

Point well taken.

I guess I was speaking of an ideal world where the experiment was done well and the scientist was honest.

You are right about some scientists fudging or hiding their results to protect a reputation or a cherished "belief".

Fortunately most scientists are honest. Either that or they take enough delight in challenging another's theory that they take pains to do their work carefully and get it peer reviewed.

There is almost as much honour in debunking an established theory as there is in creating it in the first place.

--- origionally posted by iwonder ---

There is almost as much honour in debunking an established theory as there is in creating it in the first place.
___________________

amen to that.

the rise and fall of steven hawking is testament to the validity of that statement.

cjms said:

Ok - so we're going to throw out the scientific method because it is not perfect. What are we replacing it with? I'm truly interested in knowing about this system that is better. Please enlighten me...c
_________________________________________________________________
See this is the biggest problem with science right here: people think science is the end of history. I don't know what should replace it cjms, but if it's not perfect then guess what? There's work to be done. People used to think religion was the be all to end all, and it slowed science down for hundreds of years. Now people are letting science do the same thing. Science is still loaded with bias and still hasn't proven capable of answering all our questions, and is incredibly slow, so yeah, I think there's yet room for improvement. If you think people ten thousand years from now are going to be looking back at our scientific method and won't consider it so antiquated and imperfect that they even want to use that term for what they are doing, then you are certainly going to be proven wrong. Science isn't the be all to end all anymore than anything else was, and people need to realize that or we'll stagnate.

Hi Frommian

I certainly agree with most of what you say above about science.

Science is not the end all and be all. Science has only scratched the surface of knowledge. There is a lot more "out there".

There are those who will argue with me, but science has very little to say about Ultimate Reality.

Science is reasonably good at building models and symbols of reality that let us make predictions and theories about our universe, and enable us to build radios and cell phones and Ipods and travel to the planets. But the scientific models of reality are just that, useful models but not ultimate reality itself.

Hi Arminius

You make some good points about Quantum Theory. I did not discuss it in my initial post because I wanted to keep it fairly simple. Quantum Mechanics is anything but simple! I wanted to illustrate the evolution of a theory in fairly accessible language, so that is why I chose gravity, which most people are aquainted with.

I tried to show how a theory evolves, with each refinement adding to what has gone before, with the result that even though the theory changes, the predictive capability only changes marginally with each revision to the theory.

I tried to hint at the future a bit when I mentioned the problems that General Relatively encounters at the miniscule distances that are encountered in the infinitesimally small time period after the Big Bang. And of course Quantum Theory has similar difficulties with the more cosmic effects, like gravity. We have a long way to go yet!

Possibly someone could tell me what the current status of the Theory of Evolution is? Does it still ring true with the scientific community?

Iwonder,
And you thought that the topic had been completely discussed?

If you base your belief on science and science is the scientific method and the scientific method is up for grabs then what bias is involved in your belief?

I wish I could remember who said this...

"No one has ever seen a thought or feeling, yet that is where we live most of our lives."

Science has its own bias, we have to remember that. There is an interesting exhibit at the Ontario Science Center which explores this line of thinking.

iwonder said:
Hi Frommian

I certainly agree with most of what you say above about science.

Science is not the end all and be all. Science has only scratched the surface of knowledge. There is a lot more "out there".

There are those who will argue with me, but science has very little to say about Ultimate Reality.

Science is reasonably good at building models and symbols of reality that let us make predictions and theories about our universe, and enable us to build radios and cell phones and Ipods and travel to the planets. But the scientific models of reality are just that, useful models but not ultimate reality itself.
______________________________________________________________
Okay, I retract my earlier statement. You don't have a romantic view of science at all. What you've just said is the closest I've ever seen someone else's thoughts on the matter be to my own. After 7 years in University, I was starting to think I was alone in this. Thank you.

--- origionally posted by waterfall ---

Possibly someone could tell me what the current status of the Theory of Evolution is? Does it still ring true with the scientific community?
____________________

yes, definetly.

sighsnootles said:

--- origionally posted by waterfall ---

Possibly someone could tell me what the current status of the Theory of Evolution is? Does it still ring true with the scientific community?
____________________

yes, definetly.
______________________________________________________________
I think it would be hard to find a scientist in any of the biological sciences who didn't believe in it.

Not too hard to find:

A Scientific Dissent From DarwinismDuring recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

Yet there is lots of discussion related to Darwin, the length of time required for the changes seen..... While evolution is not disputed, I don't think, there is dissent about what is actually involved.

source:

http://discoverycsc.org/

Seeing is not believing.

What you see is the light being reflected back to your eye from an object.Light travels at 186000 milrs per second but even a close object is not actually what you are seeing and the farther away the object is the more time has past .

In the vastness of space looking out...galaxies being seen are only the result of light coming from them and might no longer even exist.

Why would anyone only believe what they see?

Also, the hand is quicker than the eye...that is why alot of so called magic tricks work.

The power of suggestion is also used.

there are many other argument against believing what you see.

Hi Justhinking
You wrote: "And you thought that the topic had been completely discussed?"

I don't think I said that in this topic. Are you referring to what I said in the concurrent Evolution topic? Over there I said "There is nothing I could say or add that has not been said already, many times over"

The Evolution topic has been running for more than a year, and the last time I looked has had 221 posts, by 42 different people (although I am told that one of the posters changed her username 3 times during that period). That thread contains more than 28000 words! We are starting to cover old ground over and over again, so I decided to basically hang it up. I haven't the energy to pursue all of the threads!

You also wrote: "If you base your belief on science and science is the scientific method and the scientific method is up for grabs then what bias is involved in your belief?"

The scientific method isn't "up for grabs" it is just a methodology, an organized way of discovering information. Some of the discoveries and conclusions of science may be "up for grabs" and require peer testing, but not the mothodology itself.

As for my bias, I guess whatever it is, it arises from my sense of awe and wonder at the exquisite beauty of the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe we live in. I am fascinated by science, the nature of ultimate reality, and how it relates to the spiritual and religious dimensions of human existence.

My sense of wonder is inextricably tied into my sense of spirituality, and is what has led me to explore the nature of ultimate reality, ultimate concern and ground of being (which some would call "God").

iwonder how about this?

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17

Works for me.

Hi Justhinking

I would like to compliment you on what you said about light. THAT is pretty good science! When you present good sound scientifically based stuff like that, then we can have worthwhile and productive conversations.

It is much better than the silliness you were putting out about apes (in the other thread).

So thank you!

frommian wrote: See this is the biggest problem with science right here: people think science is the end of history. I don't know what should replace it cjms

I certainly don't think that science knows and understands everything. However I do believe that the methods that are used are pretty good. Research, research, theorize, test, scrutinize, hold up for comparison, research again, etc., etc. This seems a heck of a lot better than its opposite. You admit that you don't know of a better model. I'm not saying that any system is perfect and that doesn't mean that it's not the best method available today. One day there may be a better means of testing our understanding. At that point, I expect that we will move to that method...c

Hi Waterfall

You wrote: " iwonder how about this?
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:17
Works for me.

We all have different things that hold deep meaning for us. You read what I said earlier. I am glad you also have things that speak to the depths of you being also. These are what makes life worth living.

Hi Saul_now_Paul, Re: Evolution.
Thanks, that's what I was alluding to. I think it has become so ingrained into peoples thinking that should it be found not to be true, they will continue to believe it. Just as hard to convince people that the world wasn't flat way back when.

waterfall wrote: I think it has become so ingrained into peoples thinking that should it be found not to be true, they will continue to believe it.

And I would agree that that is one of the biggest problems with traditional Christianity today....c

twonder
thx for the compliment. But here I go again....oooohhh no!

I believe that we can learn from many methods. Science alone can be good to learn but we can also learn from other methods. Science just doen't cover it all.thus it is limiting.

We can learn from experiences...from observing, from spiritual meditation from prayer.....and even from God Himself.

Who is to say that in the future we won't find ways of communicating spiritually or other such methods...
The people then would look back at us as closed minded morons...
a little like those who refused to leave the flat earth idea.

Justthinking said: Who is to say that in the future we won't find ways of communicating spiritually or other such methods...

....and what if people in biblical times had more ability to communicate spiritually than we do now?

For the record, I doubt that was the case, but who can say?....P3

Hi Justhinking

You wrote: "I believe that we can learn from many methods. Science alone can be good to learn but we can also learn from other methods. Science just doen't cover it all.thus it is limiting.".

I believe you are correct. Science can tell us a great deal, and it can point to unbelievably wondrous things, and can expand our horizons to far beyound our wildest dreams. BUT there are many other facets of reality which science is unable to touch. You may have read what I said ealier to Frommian about this.

So I have no doubt that science will continue to expand our thinking, but that there are levels of reality and spirituality which must be discovered by other means. And there are some things which are forever beyond either our ability to discover, or our ability to comprehend.

And again thanks for toning down your rhetoric to a level where we can discuss things more productively.

I usually avoid the "science" threads. It seems we try to put that debate into "right" and "wrong".

I would be liable to turn far too geeky and ruin my reputation (I have worked hard to get this bad, tough image *giggle*)

We hate those grey areas, in our lives, out thinking, our religion and even our science. Often those who discount "moral absolutes" try to deal them out in "scientific absolutes". Both resist the thinking that as "absolutes" they may not exist.

Newton's theory of mechanics works AND doesn't work. You can find times that even the best established theories do not apply under some ciscumstance or another. Like, Newton's mechanics...at an atomic level, it doesn't predict what is seen. When you approach the speed of light, it doesn't predict what is seen. It does not mean it is "wrong", neither is it "right". It works in some conditions and doesn't in others.

The question in science is "Does the theory correctly predict some phenomena that can be measured experimentally?" The answer will be yes or no. Not truth or lie.

It is not whether evolution is right or wrong. We may or may not be able to prove that via evidence and proof. This fuels creationists and intelligent design folks to scream "it's just a theory". It fuels others to to say "it is science". Each side thinks they are right and accuses the other of being wrong.

The question is "does evolution explain (note I did not say prove) what is observed of genetics and relation between species?" I would say most scientists say YES. They believe it does (note word use). They have experiments and data that supports what they have observed and should have the limits of their observations.

People can object to to science or they can object to religion. Until it is resolved proven one way or another, they are both in the gray. They cannot claim "right" status, they can believe (note word again) they are. They cannot label someone else with "wrong" status, they can believe they are.

There are certainly those who feel science is in opposition to good religion and those who feel religion is in opposition to good science.

Do we remember Gregor Mendel, "the father of modern genetics"? Recall learning about dominant and recessiive and the pea plants? He was a Catholic priest, an Augustine monk elevated to an abbot.

Do we know the name Georges Lemaître? Should I add Monsignor to his name to help? Does it help knowing he was a Jesuit priest? What if I say he called his hypothesis the "hypothesis of the primeval atom"? Still no? How about the Big Bang?

Science and religion do not have to be in opposition.

One does not have to be "right" and the other "wrong".

It makes discussion more complex and not as simple as we would perhaps prefer.

Peace
Stevie G

PS Thanks iwonder. You are far more educated than I can hope you are a tad more geeky too, so I can keep my reputation LOL

hi iwonder,
I think it was a good idea to start the scientific method discussion group.
Especially since it is does define science today. I find that even people are studying science today and are not learning the scientific method.

You wrote: "I believe that we can learn from many methods. Science alone can be good to learn but we can also learn from other methods. Science just doen't cover it all.thus it is limiting.".

I believe you are correct. Science can tell us a great deal, and it can point to unbelievably wondrous things, and can expand our horizons to far beyound our wildest dreams. BUT there are many other facets of reality which science is unable to touch. You may have read what I said ealier to Frommian about this.

Great, we agree! I didn't read it but im going to. I do believe in science but we are imperfect beings, we can make mistakes, there are immoral decisions and immoral people with agendas putting forth their views. All I want to know is the truth. I don't lie.The truth is too important and lies are insanity.

I begin my belief process from my rock...Jesus is The Truth, The Life and The Way.

When I was a little kid in grade one or two I found that I had more questions than answers.Every answer brought forth many more questions..I wondered if I could ever understand it all...then I realized that it was impossible unless there was one simple answer to every question in the universe. I came to the conclusion that Jesus is the Answer to everything. That didn't mean that I couldn't learn details on any subject...but it di mean that the underlying answer to everything is Jesus and therefore I know the answer to everything.
In detail ...well , I have eternity to learn about this , as you say this wonderful universe.

There must be a reason why there are so many planets,suns..galaxies. I dont think God created an infinite universe for nothing.

So I have no doubt that science will continue to expand our thinking, but that there are levels of reality and spirituality which must be discovered by other means. And there are some things which are forever beyond either our ability to discover, or our ability to comprehend.

Right on....we are just a couple of guys...stand on a ball in infinite space....I love to go out into the country and just look up ...the infinity of it all is amazing.
Only an infinit God could create it. He is Great and is the only one who deserves our adoration. It is the one place we can safly park our souls in safety

And again thanks for toning down your rhetoric to a level where we can discuss things more productively.

Yeah, the other place was a wild debate....I like to discuss. Its how you get to know people.

Hi Frommian

______________________________________________________________
Okay, I retract my earlier statement. You don't have a romantic view of science at all. What you've just said is the closest I've ever seen someone else's thoughts on the matter be to my own. After 7 years in University, I was starting to think I was alone in this. Thank you.

You are not alone out there.I believe that we are actually the majority. But many are afraid to say what they really think.

Hi StephanGordon
You said:It is not whether evolution is right or wrong. We may or may not be able to prove that via evidence and proof. This fuels creationists and intelligent design folks to scream "it's just a theory". It fuels others to to say "it is science". Each side thinks they are right and accuses the other of being wrong.

The problem arises when society educates it's children with the science side and does not allow the other side.Also it teaches the children that it is fact without any discussion such as we are having here. I say let the kids decide. They aren't stupid. We insist on giving them only one side and tell them the other side is propaganda of no validity via 'the media'.

Justthinking - which other creation story would you like to present to the kids - or should we present them all? And where is your evidence to back up that story?...c

CJMS:

I was responding to StephenGordon. He also wrote the following.

People can object to to science or they can object to religion. Until it is resolved proven one way or another, they are both in the gray. They cannot claim "right" status, they can believe (note word again) they are. They cannot label someone else with "wrong" status, they can believe they are.

The above quote says it all. Both are in the gray area....Stephan puts it nicely.

Also, if you read some or most of the postings here you'll see that we are discussing more than just science. We aren't even debating the questions...we are discussing.

I won't ask you for the proof of the theory of evolution. Ive heard it over and over and over including its constant changes and updates and upgrades...It worse that MSWindows.

apparently my question went right over your head, JustThinking. I guess I'll leave it there. I am personally very glad that my children are learning the scientific method within their education....c

She Blinded Me With Science
Thomas Dolby

It's poetry in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony

Mmm - but she blinded me with science
"She blinded me with science!"
And failed me in biology
When I'm dancing close to her
"Blinding me with science - science!"

I can smell the chemicals
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"
"Science!"

Mmm - but it's poetry in motion
And when she turned her eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Mmm - but she blinded me with science
And failed me in geometry

When she's dancing next to me
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"

I can hear machinery
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"

It's poetry in motion
And now she's making love to me
The spheres're in commotion
The elements in harmony
She blinded me with science
"She blinded me with science!"
And hit me with technology

"Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!"
I - I don't believe it!

There she goes again!
She's tidied up, and I can't find anything!
All my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated notions

But! - it's poetry in motion
And when she turned her eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony

Mmm - but she blinded me with science
"She blinded me with - with science!"
She blinded me with - ...

Ok, Justthinking, first, science might say I am not male =) Now that that is out of the way....

If we refuse to teach until things are proven conclusively in ALL instances, we would not teach at all. If we get to "proven stage" and begin to be a scene from "The Left Behind" series, we will not be sitting in classrooms discussing creation. If God's very existence is proven conclusively, we are beginning right where we do here on Wondercafe. People will still be trying to prove that God is God of all people, not merely Christians. People still trying to prove that Christians have cornered the market. There will be those who set out to prove "their God" is different. People would need to prove the various incarnations....

I actually find problems with those who say they want Biblical explanations taught, creationism. They cannot decide which creation story. They cannot decide whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 or both should be presented. Do they want creation from something or creation from nothing? Young Earth or Old Earth? Intelligent design or theistic evolution?

So, we teach "we are here" and nothing much else or we teach what closest explains what is observed in the world, the world of school and science, not the world of church and religion.

What is most widely accepted is evolution.

I was taught evolution. I was also not taught that God was imaginary or simply did not exist. In fact most my science teachers did show a religious leaning of sort. One even explained that where science left questions, religions and philosophies filled them. I was taught that "the missing link" is still missing. I was taught that in the realm of DNA we do go back to common ancestors.....

In my opinion, government run and funded schools must separate church and state. I know, all too well what is taught in some schools without that line. I was once "taught" that it was proven science that homosexuals are destined to become pedophiles and that they are mentally ill. If one does not want that line, there are plenty of private and parochial schools.

If we begin teaching origins based on religion, which religion do we decide is "correct"? As far as I have EVER seen it is assumed Christianity is the only possible correct creationism. Nobody is clammering for us to present the Hindu creation story or their belief that we have lived in unchanged form on the earth for many millions of years. I also do not see a representation of Jewish thought that if Torah and science disagree then our own limits are to blame for any apparent irreconcilable point.

Therefore, to me, this is more an effort to prove Christianity is superior to science and to all other faiths. Sorry, does not get my vote.

StephenGordon,
The same misgivings could be said concerning what was taught about a superior race. Could Adolf one day return and have the DNA of the master Race
be shown to be superior via DNA examination.

Your argument doesn't hold water. The problem is that society is falling apart.
The main reson is immorality but very few can even see the problem. Kids are walking around thinking they are monkies and so what if I kill another monkey or itd suvival of the fitess so Im going to survive.

Don't you get it? Kids need moral guidance and school is not just about learning sience, bad science at that. It is about overall development.
It is preparing our youth for life. It is building a just society with just members Not just greedy little monkies.

cjms

apparently my question went right over your head, JustThinking. I guess I'll leave it there. I am personally very glad that my children are learning the scientific method within their education....c

Yeah that really went over my head. I kinda felt I was talking with Einstien.

BTW, It is good that the kids learn the scientific method. The problem is that most of them are not.

JustThinking: Seeing may not be believing, but believing is seeing, for most people, anyawy.

We don't see what there is, we see what we believe there is. In us humans, the subjective experience of seeing gets objectified or conceptualized by the thinking part of the brain, and we see what we think there is.

For instance, when a modern man and a primitive one look at a car, the modern man sees a car while the primtive man, who has no concept of modern technology, sees a stinking piece of metal. When they both look at a flower, the modern man may see just a flower while the primitive man sees the embodiment of a spirit.

We humans have dual perception. With the subejctive part of our brain we see or experience phenomena subjectively, with the objective part of our brain we interpret the subjective experience into thought according to a pre-conceived framework of interpretation. Thus, we don't experience what there is, we experience what we think there is.

But then there is empirical observation and experimental proof and other more or less scientific methods that test the truthfulness our concepts. However, the truth of even the most scientific observation shifts with the viewpoint of the observer, which is arbitralily chosen by the observer.

As I have said on my pervoius post on this topic, reality is a unified whole. But analytical or conceptual thinking cuts the whole into fragments. We can slice reality any way we want, scientifically or not, but we still are left with fragments.

Ultimate reality is a unified whole that can't be analyzed or conceptualized and still be true to its actual state. Any analysis, even scientific analysis, constitutes a fragmentation of the whole, and is an arbitrary thought-creation at best, and a delusion at worst. An arbitrary creation when believed to be relatively true, a delusion when believed to be absolutley true.

Ultimate truth can only be experienced, in the pure, uncoceptualized experience. Any conceptualization, if we want it to be holy and whole, should be undertaken from the viewpoint of the unified whole..

In Cosmic Unity,

Arminius

The comparison is ridiculous. I mentioned that it presents one faith present among many and that it blurs lines between church and state. You decide that danger is also present in teaching DNA because of Adolf Hitler?

What CAN we teach that is NOT dangerous in the wrong hands? No physics, no math, no biology, no chemistry... Cancel school it is far too dangerous to educate the youth!

Just a little question, how do we teach creation, as per the Bible, and be what some like to call "real Christians"?

If you oppose stem cell research on religious grounds, how can you teach children God formed Eve from stem cells from Adam?

I'm just saying....

Sighs,

Since you are such a DNA freak I thought this scientific tidbit might interest you.

COPENHAGEN July 6 (LPAC)--A new study by Danish scientists proves the official climate doomsday theory is wrong, according to reports in today's Danish press. In movies like Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth," it is stipulated how an increasing temperature cause the melting of the Greenland icecap, causing much higher sea levels. But a new study published in the scientific journal Science by Professor Eske Willerslev from Biological Institute at the Copenhagen University, shows a much different story. By investigating DNA found in old ice cores, the study proves that during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the temperature of Greenland was an estimated 5 degrees C higher than today, the southern part of Greenland was not melted.

"Up until now it has been thought that the Southern part of Greenland and big parts of the Northern was ice-free in the so-called Eem-period 125,000 years ago," Eske Willerslev is quoted in Jyllands-Posten. "But all the ice in the Southern part didn't melt. That contradicts the ice models used up until now. And it indicates that the ice in the Southern part of Greenland probably is more stable in relation to climate changes than has been anticipated up until now."

The 36-year old professor is a world expert in extracting DNA material from organisms found in permafrost areas. Together with researcher Jorgen Peder Steffensen and Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen from the Ice and Climate-Group at the Niels Bohr University, they have dated fossil DNA trapped in the ice to be 450,000-800,000 years old. The fossils come from a much warmer and happier period of the biology of Greenland when the climate resembled that of Southern Sweden today. That happy period of Greenland's biology ended around 500,000 years ago.

This is interesting!!

______________

The Scientific Method
What is it? The scientific method is the experimental testing of a hypothesis formulated after the systematic, objective collection of data. A scientist who studies our immune system phrased this idea very well:

"I now appreciate how much I learn by being wrong. I can change my mind when confronted with a rational argument, without the need to have the change appear to be purely semantic or to hope it will pass unnoticed. What must it be like to be a priest, general, bureaucrat, lawyer, medicine person, or politician who is never permitted to be wrong? No wonder they learn so slowly. I am grateful to be in a profession where the realization of being wrong is equivalent to an increase in knowledge."

-Melvin Cohn. Annual Review of Immunology 12, 2 (1994)

The scientific method is often divided into steps. This is helpful for putting the method into context, but keep in mind that the key element of the scientific method is testing the hypothesis. In other words, can you prove that you are wrong?

Observe the situation
Ask a question
Turn that question into a testable hypothesis
Predict the outcome of your experiment
Perform your experiment
Analyze the results
Evaluate your hypothesis

Evaluating science Mistakes made in applying the scientific method to real-world problems can result in unsupported, or even incorrect, conclusions. An example of a scientific conclusions based on insufficient scientific method recently occurred in the field of breast cancer research.

Breast cancer is caused when normal cells change and produce a tumor. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (336, 1269 (1997)), scientists from Norway studied the incidence of breast cancer in 25,624 women.
Participants gave details about their height, weight, diets, and exercise habits. The results showed an over all reduction of breast cancer by 37% for women who exercise regularly. Women who are lean and exercise at least 4 hrs per week showed the lowest incidence.

Many newspapers picked up on the data with headlines stating that exercise prevents cancer, but an editorial in the same journal by Dr. Anne McTiernan put the results in proper perspective (ibid. p. 1311). She points out that women who exercise regularly have higher levels of education and income, smoke less, drink less alcohol, and consume fewer calories and less fat. She states that establishing a casual pathway between reduced breast cancer and physical activity will require exploration for biologic mechanisms and confirmation with clinical experiments. Her final conclusion states the situation very well.

Should a woman exercise and will it prevent breast cancer? I recommend a resounding YES to the first question. Regular physical activity in women reduces overall mortality and the incidence of coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, stroke, osteoporosis, obesity, and disability, and it also lessens the impact of arthritis and cognitive decline. With respect to whether exercise reduces the risk of breast cancer, too many questions remain for women and their doctors to make informed decisions on whether, how and how much to exercise.

-Dr. Anne McTiernan, New England Journal of Medicine (336, 1311 (1997))

This example illustrates many of the problems associated with the science of biology and medicine.
_______________

Oh my gosh!

Don't tell me science can be wrong!!

Can you suggest a better method IB?

Do you have something to bring to the table?

I think most of us agree science can be wrong, IBelieve, can your theology?