Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, tgw said:

The theories you mentioned were taught to me as theories.

 

Maybe the problem stems from science sometimes being taught by morons and sometimes being taught to morons ?

And when morons teach to morons, such things as flat earthers are born ?

 

Theories which are accepted as fact due to overwhelming evidence.  Sorry, tgw.  I'm not fooled by you trying to claim that, hey, no, really, they're just taught as theory.  Skip the "accepted as fact" part.  LOL

From Wiki:

 

He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".
 

Ergo, no proof.  No proof, no fact.  In other words, belief.  Some scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be fact while others reject it.  So even within the field of science itself there is not a universal consensus.  Why?  Because it's not proven and it's up to each scientist as to whether they want to believe it's fact or not.

 

I'm just looking for some honesty amongst folks and damn if I can't find it.  But if you're going to try and fool me then please make it more believable than to imply, "Well, I was taught it was theory (and I'm sure you forgot to add, "and nothing more.")

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Theories which are accepted as fact due to overwhelming evidence.  Sorry, tgw.  I'm not fooled by you trying to claim that, hey, no, really, they're just taught as theory.  Skip the "accepted as fact" part.  LOL

From Wiki:

 

He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".
 

Ergo, no proof.  No proof, no fact.  In other words, belief.  Some scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be fact while others reject it.  So even within the field of science itself there is not a universal consensus.  Why?  Because it's not proven and it's up to each scientist as to whether they want to believe it's fact or not.

 

I'm just looking for some honesty amongst folks and damn if I can't find it.  But if you're going to try and fool me then please make it more believable than to imply, "Well, I was taught it was theory (and I'm sure you forgot to add, "and nothing more.")

You're not looking for honesty at all, you're looking for conformity to a view that many if not most people disagree with. Your view of the confluence of science, facts and theories is particularly binary. The reality is that theories are not binary. All theories are unproven, some are accepted to such a degree that there is little need to disbelieve them. The theory of evolution is so widely supported by observation and experiments that we are able to largely explain how we got here and how viruses will mutate in the future. On the other hand, the "theory" that the world was made in 7 days is not supported by anything except belief. These and many other theories are not equivalent. You would have it that theories are not useful until proven. That is far from true. I was always taught in physics that a theory remains a theory until it is proved and then it becomes a law, as in Newton's law of gravity. I was never taught that any theory is fact.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You see, this is why, in my opinion, so many debates are futile.  All three are theories yet all three are taught as fact.  Check.  If they are not proven facts then they are beliefs.  Check.  Yet all one gets is a denial in one form or another.  Check.

 

And your conclusion is that I'm looking for a problem that's not there?  No, I'm looking for some honesty that will never come.

 

Weeellll, yes they are just theories and may not be correct (partial but very weak admission).  But of course they may even be extremely likely (yeah, they're not proven but chances are really, really good that they are fact).

 

How about, "Ya know, you got a good point."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Belief requires a leap of faith. 

Scientific methodologies don't allow this. I am not denying that some may treat a theory as fact or belief because often the evidence is overwhelming. But that's humans getting on with life and not scientific methodology. 

It is religion and some new age spirituality, where subjective feelings and experiences are given credence, and a leap of faith is seemingly acceptable.

Who knows maybe something in that area may become provable and join the science family. But they can't be proven by subjective experience only because, by definition, that's not how scientific theories can be given credence. 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Stocky said:

A scientific theory is NOT a fact, rather it is an explanation that fits the currently available factual data. There can be several competing theories or a single established theory. Either you misunderstood your science teacher, or your science teacher wasn't very good.

Same quote from Wiki from my last post:

He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".

I'm not going to comment on your reading comprehension but as I read the above "fact in science as meaning data" and "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"  whereas assent clearly means assent to treat evolution as fact.  Fact not known with absolute certainty but fact nonetheless.

My understanding has nothing to do with my science teacher and everything to do with the proper use of logic.  If you read the above and derive a completely different meaning from clear and concise English then please don't attempt to lecture me.

 

Theory is theory and fact is fact.  The two are not identical.  If you agree to make special provisions that allow theory to be treated as fact that's up to you to pretend it's possible.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You're not looking for honesty at all, you're looking for conformity to a view that many if not most people disagree with. Your view of the confluence of science, facts and theories is particularly binary. The reality is that theories are not binary. All theories are unproven, some are accepted to such a degree that there is little need to disbelieve them. The theory of evolution is so widely supported by observation and experiments that we are able to largely explain how we got here and how viruses will mutate in the future. On the other hand, the "theory" that the world was made in 7 days is not supported by anything except belief. These and many other theories are not equivalent. You would have it that theories are not useful until proven. That is far from true. I was always taught in physics that a theory remains a theory until it is proved and then it becomes a law, as in Newton's law of gravity. I was never taught that any theory is fact.

I am looking for honesty and I'm still not getting it.  In no way am I looking for conformity as conformity has no bearing on truth.  I'm looking for truth.

 

All theories are unproven.  So what?  I've never argued otherwise.  And all facts are . . . . proven.  Great!  We've finally reached the agreement that theories are not facts.  Good.  Let's keep going.

 

And here's where you admitted, in your own words, the point I've been ceaselessly pounding away at:  ". . . some are accepted to such a degree that there is little need to disbelieve them."

It's what I have been saying all along . . . a theory is unproven, therefore it is not fact.  A fact is a fact because it is proven.  Evolution is not proven therefore it is theory.  The preponderance of evidence is such that though we understand evolution to be theory we believe the evidence is sufficient to consider evolution fact, per "fact in science as meaning data."
 

Again, science is allowing a preponderance of data to change theory into accepted fact.  And don't tell me that evolution, or the big bang, or life appearing out of nowhere, has not been treated as fact in this world - practically speaking.  I was listening to an MSM broadcast just the other day . . . can't recall what it was about now . . . where the hostess cited evolution as factual.

Tell me . . . why has there not been a single, solitary artifact ever been found which shows any kind of progression from, say, an amoeba to a fish?  To a bird?  To an insect?  To a flower?  How about scientists sitting down with an illustrator to have him conceptualise this evolutionary progression from whatever the original spark of life was to another life form?

You might not agree that the belief that the world was created in 7days is any type of equivalency to Darwin's theory of evolution, with all of it's voluminous evidence, but I doubt that the gulf as wide as you think it is.

 

One last comment to your post.  I have no reason to doubt that you were never taught that theory is fact.  With utmost sincerity I say, "Good!  You were taught properly."  But because it was your experience is no reason to assume it was the identical experience for all science students.  As tgw pointed out earlier,

 

"Maybe the problem stems from science sometimes being taught by morons and sometimes being taught to morons ?

"And when morons teach to morons, such things as flat earthers are born ?"

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Not bull at all Tippaporn...and since when is "porn" a bad thing??? 555 PLUS you just admitted it is your nick, as I already mentioned is very common. However, since Tippaporn is so triggered...IF Skeptic7 ever lowers himself to address or acknowledge Tippaporn again, will be sure to only use full username. ????

 

LOL...YOU keeping anyone honest! So much as me. 

Tippaporn is my nick, not Porn.  Keep pushing it buddy.

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Tell me . . . why has there not been a single, solitary artifact ever been found which shows any kind of progression from, say, an amoeba to a fish?  To a bird?  To an insect?  To a flower?  How about scientists sitting down with an illustrator to have him conceptualise this evolutionary progression from whatever the original spark of life was to another life form?

You've got to be kidding. The fossil record, the similarity in bone structure, the similarity in genetic structure between animals all point to evolution as being an inescapable fact.

 

"Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

Edited December 28, 2021 by ozimoron

[Kwasaki]

This thread is reminding me of the Joker in superman "Why so serious".

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You've got to be kidding. The fossil record, the similarity in bone structure, the similarity in genetic structure between animals all point to evolution as being an inescapable fact.

 

"Special creationists argue that "no one has seen evolution occur." This misses the point about how science tests hypotheses. We don't see Earth going around the sun or the atoms that make up matter. We "see" their consequences. Scientists infer that atoms exist and Earth revolves because they have tested predictions derived from these concepts by extensive observation and experimentation."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

I think you're the one who is kidding.  No one has ever shown a jump from one form of species to a completely different species.  From fish to mermaid to human form?  Got any fossils showing such a transition?  Or an equivalent since I think we'd both agree that mermaids don't exist?

And it's not an inescapable fact.  It's theory.  Can we finally call it what is, in truth.  After all, there have been several posters who have already confirmed they were taught by good science teachers, not the moronic type, to never conflate theory with fact.  Call it fact when you finally get real proof.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think you're the one who is kidding.  No one has ever shown a jump from one form of species to a completely different species.  From fish to mermaid to human form?  Got any fossils showing such a transition?  Or an equivalent since I think we'd both agree that mermaids don't exist?

And it's not an inescapable fact.  It's theory.  Can we finally call it what is, in truth.  After all, there have been several posters who have already confirmed they were taught by good science teachers, not the moronic type, to never conflate theory with fact.  Call it fact when you finally get real proof.

Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that all animals have common ancestors. Fish did not become humans. Or maybe they did but not necessarily. Would you deny that chimpanzees, apes and humans have common ancestors? Darwin suggested that different species separated geographically often have such common features that they must have evolved from common ancestors.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that all animals have common ancestors. Fish did not become humans. Or maybe they did but not necessarily. Would you deny that chimpanzees, apes and humans have common ancestors? Darwin suggested that different species separated geographically often have such common features that they must have evolved from common ancestors.

Well how would you explain the uncountable multitude of life forms present today all evolving from a single spark of life?  Do you now get a sense of how similar scientific theory becomes to the theory of the world being created in 7 days.  I'll tell ya, I couldn't begin to tell you how that happened.  So can you even begin to explain evolution from a single lifeform to the variety we have today (including us)?

 

And to answer your question, "No, I don't believe for a moment that my ancestral tree includes apes."  Logically it doesn't follow that similarities between species means that evolution progressed from one species to another.  There would then be the question of, say, why apes evolved into a humans but not all apes did.

 

So many questions.  So many gaps in scientific explanations.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Tippaporn

[Skeptic7]

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You've got to be kidding.

I hear ya! Sadly he's not kidding.  And he'll keep baiting the hook as long as anyone keeps biting. ????. Fair warning.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Well how would you explain the uncountable multitude of life forms present today all evolving from a single spark of life?  Do you now get a sense of how similar scientific theory becomes to the theory of the world being created in 7 days.  I'll tell ya, I couldn't begin to tell you how that happened.  So can you even begin to explain evolution from a single lifeform to the variety we have today (including us)?

Here is an article which explains it. To be honest I have always considered that there must have been many different sparks of life but apparently not.

 

https://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/

 

 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Here is an article which explains it. To be honest I have always considered that there must have been many different sparks of life but apparently not.

 

https://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/

 

Just so you know, I did read the article, as I read most every article someone provides in support of their points of view.

 

There are so many gaps in specificity, so many questions that could be asked, so many leaps of faith (for I doubt anyone could even remotely reconstruct the world faithfully as it existed billions of years ago) that to be honest . . . not kidding at all . . . I would rather read the Bible to my 9 year-old daughter than this fairy tale.

I know what you're thinking.  "Where do I go from here to make this idiot understand that this stuff is for r-e-a-l."  I'll give a clue:  it would take much more than a 2,453 word magazine article to adequately explain and then convince me of how we went from a solitary single cell life form, if that's what the spark of life did indeed create, to a world flush with miraculous life forms pervading land and sea.

FYI, Skeptic just majorly promoted your abilities.  He wasn't specific but he gave me fair warning.  Dunno if I should put my tail between my legs and hightail it outta here.  

[ozimoron]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just so you know, I did read the article, as I read most every article someone provides in support of their points of view.

 

There are so many gaps in specificity, so many questions that could be asked, so many leaps of faith (for I doubt anyone could even remotely reconstruct the world faithfully as it existed billions of years ago) that to be honest . . . not kidding at all . . . I would rather read the Bible to my 9 year-old daughter than this fairy tale.

I know what you're thinking.  "Where do I go from here to make this idiot understand that this stuff is for r-e-a-l."  I'll give a clue:  it would take much more than a 2,453 word magazine article to adequately explain and then convince me of how we went from a solitary single cell life form, if that's what the spark of life did indeed create, to a world flush with miraculous life forms pervading land and sea.

FYI, Skeptic just majorly promoted your abilities.  He wasn't specific but he gave me fair warning.  Dunno if I should put my tail between my legs and hightail it outta here.  

What then is your best guess? God created all life? I'm interested. Seriously.

[tgw]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Theories which are accepted as fact due to overwhelming evidence.  Sorry, tgw.  I'm not fooled by you trying to claim that, hey, no, really, they're just taught as theory.  Skip the "accepted as fact" part.  LOL

From Wiki:

 

He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".
 

Ergo, no proof.  No proof, no fact.  In other words, belief.  Some scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be fact while others reject it.  So even within the field of science itself there is not a universal consensus.  Why?  Because it's not proven and it's up to each scientist as to whether they want to believe it's fact or not.

 

I'm just looking for some honesty amongst folks and damn if I can't find it.  But if you're going to try and fool me then please make it more believable than to imply, "Well, I was taught it was theory (and I'm sure you forgot to add, "and nothing more.")

huh?

theory is theory, that's it.

for many things, there is just a theory as an explication, sometimes just a single theory, along with "that's the best we could do".

 

I really don't see which hairs you are splitting here.

 

Maybe read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

So no, a scientific fact is different from a scientific theory. The words are different and have a different meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science

 

So "theory accepted as fact" is not a scientific wording. Maybe you mean a theory that is "widely assumed to be true" and therefore taught in schools.

 

In contrast, things that have zero chances of being true tend to not get taught in science courses.

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by tgw

[talahtnut]

Mans brain is too big, too clever, too stupid,

it will be his downfall. Life prebronze age is the

only way mankind can survive with nature.

Or become extinct and let animals rule the world

without waste and ridiculous consumption.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Mans brain is too big, too clever, too stupid,

it will be his downfall. Life prebronze age is the

only way mankind can survive with nature.

Or become extinct and let animals rule the world

without waste and ridiculous consumption.

The key to survival is solving climate change. If we can do that we can live on our planet. If not, we are doomed.

[TropicalGuy]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Listen, you can claim all you like that science gets to treat unproven theory as fact but it will never change the fact that it's unproven.  Unproven theory is belief.  No different, in my opinion, than religious belief that says the world was created in 7 days.  Both are fantasy until actual proof is presented for either.

Your use of capitalisation to imply authority doesn't impress me in the least.  Neither does it confer credibility to statement.  Use all caps next time.  I don't care.  It won't change the truth.

Nobody really cares what is “believed” only what is Evidenced so Proven. 
Dismissal of Scientific Method as Unproven & Fantasy is Pure Nonsense.
 

[talahtnut]

23 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The key to survival is solving climate change. If we can do that we can live on our planet. If not, we are doomed.

Agreed, but the climate has been changing for 4 billion+ years and

will continue changing until it incinerates into the sun,  and theres

bu&&er we can do about it, but as you say, use our home as wisely

as we can for the time being.

[tgw]

1 hour ago, TropicalGuy said:

Nobody really cares what is “believed” only what is Evidenced so Proven. 
Dismissal of Scientific Method as Unproven & Fantasy is Pure Nonsense.
 

Science and scientific theories do get misused for political gain and power though.

[mikebike]

11 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Science,

In the USA it's reported up to 20% of fetus are aborted.

And untold more were never conceived due to contraception.

Do you somehow, mistakenly, believe that abortions and contraception were not a thing in the past?

[mikebike]

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Theory is theory and fact is fact.

I bet you cannot come up with a "fact" which is not in some way debatable. Just like a theory.

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What then is your best guess? God created all life? I'm interested. Seriously.

I don't know.

Three words that most are horrified to have to admit to.

 

Now for practical purposes I do have my beliefs, as you have yours.  I can say that my beliefs are not a haphazard, disorganised assortment of half-baked ideas lacking any sense of logic or completely without cohesion.  To the contrary.

 

Just as it is not possible, in my opinion, to adequately explain life transitioning from a single cell life form, however many billions of years ago, into the myriad of life forms presently found in the world in 2,453 words neither would it be possible for me to present you with a working alternate theory to that of science using even less words.  That would be an unreasonable effort to ask me to make.  And if I did make the attempt it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to be able to judge it fairly.

 

Therefore, to be fair to both of us I'll pass.  I think you'd agree, ozimoron, wouldn't you?

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I bet you cannot come up with a "fact" which is not in some way debatable. Just like a theory.

It's been said that fact is a weak brew of reality.  I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.  So, perhaps to your surprise I'm not in disagreement with you.

 

However, given the difficulties of understanding that current scientific understanding of evolution and the origin of life and the origin of the universe thus far is not rooted in 100% fact (as facts are understood) and still maintains roots, to whatever degree, in belief then one can imagine the difficulties which would arise in even hinting towards a notion that "facts" can be debated as to their true validity.

I ain't going there.  The howls would be deafening.  I'd prefer throwing myself to the lions.  

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The key to survival is solving climate change. If we can do that we can live on our planet. If not, we are doomed.

LOL.  I think we've got bigger, real problems to deal with before we move on to the fictional ones.

 

Just throwing the comment out there to let folks know where I stand.  I've no intention of discussing it, though.  I already know the results of such a debate.  Opinion = truth.

 

Referring to mikebike's last post, if ever there were "facts" which are debatable the "facts" of "climate change" would be prime candidates.  LOL

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

Good morning, Skeptic.  

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Nobody really cares what is “believed” only what is Evidenced so Proven. 

<snip>

You'd be surprised to know how much people care about what is believed.  What is propaganda?  "I'll take that for $100, Alex."

 

7 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

<snip>

Dismissal of Scientific Method as Unproven & Fantasy is Pure Nonsense.

Who dismissed the scientific method?  When?  Where?  Or are you talking about dismissing Darwin's evolutionary theory as unproven & fantasy?

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, tgw said:

<snip>

 

I really don't see which hairs you are splitting here.

 

<snip>

I don't think you properly see my point in my quoted post.

[TKDfella]

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They had lots of science by then. Did the Egyptians build pyramids without science? There are many other examples of applied science in history well before Roman times as well. If you don't agree, define what you consider "science".

And it goes back further to the Sumerians (who, on a lighter note, enjoyed their beer ????). Basic mathematics was quite well developed and mathematics is an integral part of science.