Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[crazy canuck]

Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.

My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.

Actually that is my point.

[ulmont]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

Or disproven.  Religious faith can never really be disproven.  You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.

I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.

[Berkut]

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

You have heard of the scientific method I trust.

I bet he has - and his "huh" is based on your claim that said method apparently "proves" things. It does not, and cannot, ever.

[Berkut]

Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.

My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.

Actually that is my point.

Right.

[crazy canuck]

All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.

Exactly.  Valmy put it nicely.

You appear simply to want to argue.

[Viking]

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

It may be unwise.  But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories.  Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.

As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.

Global warming is not proven.  Evolution is not proven.  Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not proven.  Those ideas however have had enormous consequences.

The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity make predictions, lots of predictions. These have been tested from breeding fruit flies to flying clocks really really fast and every prediction has been found to be confirmed. As far as science is concerned they are proved, until somebody comes up with a better idea of course.

Global Warming is not as well documented, in the sense of being able to correctly predict precisely what effect humans have on future climate, as the other theories.

[ulmont]

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

You have heard of the scientific method I trust.

I bet he has - and his "huh" is based on your claim that said method apparently "proves" things. It does not, and cannot, ever.

Sure it does and can.  "X theory is wrong for Y reason" can easily be proven.

[Valmy]

Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.

Yeah and why did God do that?  So the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites.

I always found that rather amusing.  The Church was telling us that God stopped the Sun in the sky, not for some noble or holy purpose, just so the Israelites could see better while massacring.

[Viking]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

:boggle:

All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.

Popper FTW!

[grumbler]

That is where you are mistaken.  I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true.  I have never claimed that my faith is proven.

Please please please tell me that you don't do your work based on that standard of truth?

Please please please tell me that you simply don't understand the concept of faith, rather than that you do understand it and chose to pretend not to in order to insult.

[Valmy]

I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.

Doubt it.  Some people would be convinced but many would not.  It is religious faith after all.

[crazy canuck]

So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?

None.

Since I have no religion.

I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.

As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.

[Viking]

Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.

Yeah and why did God do that?  So the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites.

I always found that rather amusing.  The Church was telling us that God stopped the Sun in the sky, not for some noble or holy purpose, just so the Israelites could see better while massacring.

And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.

[Barrister]

I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.

Doubt it.  Some people would be convinced but many would not.  It is religious faith after all.

It might make some difference to the true fundamentalists, but most of the Christians I know happily accept scientific evidence, and don't disbelieve it just because "the Bible says so".

[Berkut]

All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.

Exactly.  Valmy put it nicely.

You appear simply to want to argue.

WTF?

You just said the exact opposite of that - that scientists prove their theories, I point out that you are exactly wrong, and *I* am the one who just wants to argue?

*You* are the one who challenged me when I said science was NOT about believing in things that were not evidenced, proceeded to equate science with faith (claiming both believe in things they cannot "prove) and then went off and started babbling about scientists and their believing in things without evidence, which me and Valmy have both shown to be false. Don't start pretending like you were agreeing with me all along.