Despite being a fan of science myself, I can't help but realize that rather than being a positive trait, that willingness to change is instead a negative characteristic of science. A certain faith has at least one possibility in some outrageous number of possibilities to be actually correct. Science,on the other hand is malleable; if science can change given new evidence, then it is reasonable to assume that it is possible that science has got it completely wrong--that, given a whole mess of new evidence, we might find it to be invalid altogether.  

And with each given change, we can be no more sure that it has gained any actual possibility of being right, since it is always open to new evidence; effectively rendering the possibility that science is valid: zero.  

Faith 1 :: Science 0
eh?

Though, I still believe I'm on the losing side.

Edit: When I speak of science as "it" I mean everything scientific, anything we consider "science" and "truth". Everything that we trust because of evidence. Excluded are the absurd: the faiths. held for no reason at all but just because.

Post edited at 5:34 pm on June 16, 2009 by Event Horizon

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

I believe that science, being our best guess, actually has merit. While I admit that it is possible that all of science is wrong, I do not subscribe to the notion that that is very plausible. I think subscribing to an idea that is stolid is less...creative. It uses less of the potential of man. We are an inquisitive people, and I think we should use our abilities to try to learn as much as we can. I don't think settling on one idea is a good thing.

Though, nor do I believe we should rid ourselves of the spiritual, the meaningfulness. Not necessarily a god or anything, just something divine--some divine intrigue.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

I figured there would be at least some...

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

"What if there IS a God? Then you're screwed."

Anything is certainly possible: I could be in a coma dreaming about posting this, atoms could be unicorns, everything we know via science could be absolutely false and the Bible could be a history textbook.

The reason no one responded is because there is no "intellectual" way to say "Yeah, maybe, but I'm not going to spend time worrying about that."

---

That's not what this is about. At all.  
I'm not talking about believing in the God, I'm talking about possibilities. It is a response to those who say that science is a more probable choice in the "TRUTHS" category than a specific faith.

---

From what I remember in my Chemistry Classes, Science has three classes of ideas. Hypothesizes, which are like hunches, Theories, which are not totally proven but has absolutely no flaws so far, and a Law, which is true and cannot be disproved - ever. Only our understanding of a law can change.

Then we have Religion. Religion is like a Chinese Buffet. People go through, pick and choose what they want to believe in. Nothing in Religion is static, not even the book itself. The Bible used to be much larger, but a lot of the books were removed. Then we have people like Joseph Smith writing about Jesus' adventures with the Native Americans. Most Christians don't think we should stone disobedient children, sell our daughters into slavery, and use rape as a commodity, but all scientists believe in Inertia.

I think it was Ben Stein that did a movie on people who were criticized and criticize others in the Scientific community because they did not believe in Evolution. Evolution is considered a theory, and religious folk often point that out as a "just a hunch!" It's not. As far as the Scientific Community is confused,  the theory is without flaw, or it would have been trashed by now.

Post edited at 9:34 am on June 28, 2009 by Mein Alias

---

You reposed this nonsense here? Sad. I said it before and ill say it again: science is backed by evidence, faith is not. Therefore, science beats faith every time.

---

Posted it here first. got no responses.

You've misread the post again. I'm not sure it's valid, but the objections you've raised have been less than convincing for why this is wrong.

Prior to our knowledge of gravity wells, we thought that masses simply attracted. while our predictions and calculations were close approximations, and newtonian mechanics still worked pretty well for large, slow bodies, the overall understanding of the reality of things was wrong. This is what I'm talking about.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

You reposed this nonsense here? Sad. I said it before and ill say it again: science is backed by evidence, faith is not. Therefore, science beats faith every time.

---

---

Prior to our knowledge of gravity wells, we thought that masses simply attracted. while our predictions and calculations were close approximations, and newtonian mechanics still worked pretty well for large, slow bodies, the overall understanding of the reality of things was wrong. This is what I'm talking about.

---

Gravity is a Scientific Law, because it exists and that can never be disproved.
Gravitational Theory is how we explained that apples fall from trees. Someone put some heavy duty maths together and disproved that theory, now we have another one.

Religious Texts are books written by story-tellers. They wrote down how they though the Earth was made off a hunch and then they wrote down what they thought was fundamental to being a human as expected by their God(s). Things like "Murder is Bad."
Still, there are exceptions to these. In self-defense, is murder wrong? What about during a war, where our government forces our hand to the trigger with threats of imprisonment? Hypocrisies are everywhere.

There are no exceptions to Scientific Law.
There are exceptions to Scientific Theory.
There are exceptions to Faith, but you don't see fine print in the back of the Bible saying "the things written in this book are open to interpretation," where as the Scientific Community welcomes all intelligent input.

So yes, even science in all of its glory is open to new interpretation. Remember that quantum mechanics suggests that by simply conceiving something, you have given it the possibility, no matter how far-fetched, of being real/true.

-------
This is how we bleed in audio.

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:20 pm on June 28, 2009

---

You reposed this nonsense here? Sad. I said it before and ill say it again: science is backed by evidence, faith is not. Therefore, science beats faith every time.

---

I'm assuming you're talking to me.
I'm more than willing to fight about what I've said over PM.

---

Prior to our knowledge of gravity wells, we thought that masses simply attracted. while our predictions and calculations were close approximations, and newtonian mechanics still worked pretty well for large, slow bodies, the overall understanding of the reality of things was wrong. This is what I'm talking about.

---

Look, I'm not going to rephrase this anymore.

Gravity is a Scientific Law, because it exists and that can never be disproved.
Gravitational Theory is how we explained that apples fall from trees. Someone put some heavy duty maths together and disproved that theory, now we have another one.

Religious Texts are books written by story-tellers. They wrote down how they though the Earth was made off a hunch and then they wrote down what they thought was fundamental to being a human as expected by their God(s). Things like "Murder is Bad."
Still, there are exceptions to these. In self-defense, is murder wrong? What about during a war, where our government forces our hand to the trigger with threats of imprisonment? Hypocrisies are everywhere.

There are no exceptions to Scientific Law.
There are exceptions to Scientific Theory.
There are exceptions to Faith, but you don't see fine print in the back of the Bible saying "the things written in this book are open to interpretation," where as the Scientific Community welcomes all intelligent input.

---

I'm not denying that things fall down. I'm saying that with the possibility that ever new evidence exists to change our understanding of why they do, our theories on the workings of the universe are subject to change. Things still fall, but we may be wrong about why.

I didn't argue anything but that point.

I'm just saying, probabilistically speaking, if we are to assume infinite possibilities, religious ideologies have a chance of correctly describing the universe, where-as the scientific method, by definition, does not allow for any specific theory to be 100% valid. There is always room for error in the theory of things, and because of that--with respect to the infinite possibilities--science can never be actually correct.

Again, not arguing that things don't actually fall down, only arguing that the reasons why this happens are subject to new evidence, of which there is possibly an infinite amount of.

It's just an intellectual curiosity, I'm not trying to redefine some philosophic school or anything.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

The chance that any one religion will it get it totally right in our lifetime is about as good as the chance that I'll have a heart-attack before finishing typing this sentence. Maybe one day. But not soon.

---

I'd say far less likely, in fact.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov