MAStudent

Science/scientific method/physiology/biology/split tailed t-tests/within one standard deviation/etc once claimed that traction was good for a bone fracture.

Turns out it is the worst thing for a fracture. Bones need stress to respond with bone growth/ healing. So the very attribute that gives science the "higher ground" is the attribute that schould be looked at more closely. Namely, that we go with the best explanation until a better one comes along. If there has been no evidence to date that satisfies you. just say that. Don't try to argue down people who have had evidence that satisfies them.

After all, who really knows? The most accurate thing we can say is that we are just creepy monkeys and our logic and evidence gathering methods are inherently flawed.

__________________
"i think that's the real issue right there. first they tell us that there's no such thing as a brontosaurus, and then they tell us that pluto isn't a planet. i think after those two let-downs most americans have just decided "frag scientists." "- oops, I forgot who I quoted. adolescent something?

s_k

Thanks. I did look it up but I couldn't find the right word.
Now that you mention it: I should've known

__________________
Click here to see my collection

RVCA

Unfortunately, "science" never "claims" anything. "Science" develops theories, and the only reason we hold theories to be true is because they have yet to be falsified. Should some physicist discover tomorrow that gravity is not a universal constant (or some crazy thing), "science" would gladly throw everything it's "claimed" about our universe over the last several hundred years out the window.

jordanthornburg

You (think?) religion is a sham.......you dont know. its ok to think,,,,but dont act like you know when youre not a believer. You can never know thought if you think that way

__________________
I love Jesus

s_k

And that's the second posting by Jordan about God.
Please talk about music man. That's what you're supposed to be here for.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

jordanthornburg

i love music actually but this is a forum about whether or not god is real......but what kind of music do you like

__________________
I love Jesus

jordanthornburg

Y does me saying that you have to accept gods possibility to belive in him make you mad. ITs true. the same way you have to accept the possibility the christopher columbus dicsovered america to believe its true or not. You have to weigh the options when you are deciding if something is true. Am i wrong in that? Im not pushing my beliefs on ne one and apologize if you take it that way. This is just my opinion. This forum is about whether or not god is real and i am just trying to show you where im coming from cuz i want you to feel like i do. But i will not push it on ne one

__________________
I love Jesus

jordanthornburg

IF any one has a question for a christian BRING ITTTTTT!!!!!! Just kidding but seriously if someone truly wants to know what i think and not attack me ill do my best to honestly answer.....and not force anything on anybody

__________________
I love Jesus

RVCA

Do you believe Gandhi is burning in hell because he didn't profess his faith to Christianity?

Guybrush

I agree that from the basic point of view, almost any assumption can be true. For example, you should accept the possibility that God exists and you should accept the possibility that God doesn't exist. Generally speaking, if two such assumptions about our world are in direct opposition like the example is (it would be hard to believe that God does and does not exist at the same time), then you should have some criteria which help you pick one over the other.

Much of science is based on such criterias for what can be "true" or not. You have principles like empirical testing to support statements about our world and you have general principles like the law of parsimony which says that when faced with two conflicting hypothesis, the one whose acceptance requires the least amount of new assumptions about our world (sometimes called most "simple") is the preferred hypothesis, not because it has to be true, but because the chances of accepting a hypothesis about our world which is not true is smaller.

I have a real problem with people who seem to have no criteria or who seem to have them, but they're probably along the lines of "I'll believe whatever makes me feel good" or "I'll believe in what I think is most exciting". In my opinion, people should want to have a belief about our world which is as close to the truth as possible. People who don't feel that way should be kept from littering the minds of children. In Norway, I'd like to see critical thinking and criterias for what we should accept as truth or not taught in schools at an early age.

__________________
Something Completely Different