The faith of scientists

[Arete]

Notice the two qualifiers: accept and provisionally. I do not believe findings of scientists. I accept those findings. I do so provisionally because all scientific findings are provisional. And still there is no need at any point for faith.

 

As an example - if new evidence supports a theory which explains biological diversification better than evolution by natural selection, science will adopt it.

 

If new evidence which proves Jesus didn't rise from the dead is found - what happens to Christianity?

[rajakrsna]

I`m a gov`t physician & what I do in treating my patients is based on what I learned from med school & being able to pass the physician licensure exams to get a license to practice medicine. After 25 years, I learned there are still diseases which medical science can not find a cure. Take for example cancer. Almost all with stage 3-4 cancer despite the advances in oncology, surgery , radiotherapy, chemotherapy ,etc have failed in curing completely the big C. How about mental illness? It`s next to impossible to cure a schizophrenic the paranoid type. The disease is even linked to being possessed by demons. So, if ever you get the big C or become ill mentally overnight, I`m doubt if doctors can cure you with what they learned in their study and practice of medicine. I even know personally of doctors themselves who succumbed to cancer. They spent millions of pesos for chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy & yet died in vain. So, when science fails where do you turn to? Of course you turn to God by asking God within yourself why there are so many diseases that can not be cured by medical science & yet can be cured by faith. The blind can see, the deaf can hear, the lame can walk, cancer cured, etc. If there`s ever a science which is very difficult to apply and do wonders it is in the field of medicine. In other words, scientists know they possess knowledge of unusual events, occurrences & nature of things by conducting trials and experiments to validate, document what they think can be explained. If they can explain the nature of cancer then why can they not find a single cure for it?

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[Villain]

A scientist can determine directly for himself that the scientific method is a practical, effective method of determining how certain phenomena work. He or she will do this likely in a specialised area of research. Within that area they will be able to verify by experiment and observation that such and such seems to be the case. They can compare their results with the results of others performed from different perspectives and find their hypothesis is validated, or in need of modification.

 

They can do this for a lifetime and thus demonstrate in a specific field that the scientific method is a reliable one. No faith is required for this. They can then examine the work of other scientists in other fields and observe that they are employing the same methodology. It requires no faith to expect the same methodology to produce the same results. Thus they can readily accept provisionally all findings reported by scientists in other fields that have been derived by the scientific method.

 

Notice the two qualifiers: accept and provisionally. I do not believe findings of scientists. I accept those findings. I do so provisionally because all scientific findings are provisional. And still there is no need at any point for faith.

 

Yes, but I was hoping to hear the opinion of scientific people, those that are not sitting on the fence of I don't believe but provisionally accept that you have said something which you are calling science and of which I express no opinion. Why would doing nothing require faith?

Edited March 9, 2012 by Villain

[rajakrsna]

Yes, but I was hoping to hear the opinion of scientific people, those that are not sitting on the fence of I don't believe but provisionally accept that you have said something which you are calling science and of which I express no opinion. Why would doing nothing require faith?

 

 

That`s a Buddhist philosophy. That something came out of nothing. That you have to give faith a chance by emptying yourself of the scientific garbage that`s confusing your rational mind and by doing so be filled with God`s love, wisdom and truth.

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[Villain]

As an example - if new evidence supports a theory which explains biological diversification better than evolution by natural selection, science will adopt it.

 

If new evidence which proves Jesus didn't rise from the dead is found - what happens to Christianity?

 

I suggest a case study: You can find the evidence and present it to the world and then report your finds to the rest of the forum. Please make sure your evidence is without doubt and preferably in a mathematical equation.

[Arete]

I suggest a case study: You can find the evidence and present it to the world and then report your finds to the rest of the forum. Please make sure your evidence is without doubt and preferably in a mathematical equation.

 

Find what evidence? I quite clearly state - "If such evidence were found". Are you implying that scientific theories are not altered in light of new evidence?

Edited March 9, 2012 by Arete

[imatfaal]

Does science assume nothing?

 

You ask that in a manner that implies that it has been claimed that scientists assume nothing - where would that be. I hope I have managed to avoid ascribing any motives, actions, or beliefs to science per se - it is, I repeat, not an agent, it is a concept or way of proceeding to seek knowledge. Scientists must believe and assume that nature is amenable to modelling - ie extreme solipsistic concepts are rejected as unfalsifiable and non-testable. Most assume that the scientific method in one guise or another is an adequate way to create models that comply with nature and make predictions that tally with future observations. Mathematics (which is vital to all science) is axiomatic so there are some things that cannot be proven and have to be assumed - but they are flagged and acknowledged as a potential flaw from the get-go.

[iNow]

It appears that we have here yet another argument from conflation and obfuscation. I am reluctant to believe that any counter argument will effectively change their mind. Good luck.

[rajakrsna]

What were the faith of the scientists who built the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? That they had faith the bombs wont be a couple of duds and just the way according to plan will explode?

[Villain]

It appears that we have here yet another argument from conflation and obfuscation. I am reluctant to believe that any counter argument will effectively change their mind. Good luck.

 

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I recognise that the concept that I am proposing is not being understood.

[dimreepr]

I`m a gov`t physician & what I do in treating my patients is based on what I learned from med school & being able to pass the physician licensure exams to get a license to practice medicine. After 25 years, I learned there are still diseases which medical science can not find a cure. Take for example cancer. Almost all with stage 3-4 cancer despite the advances in oncology, surgery , radiotherapy, chemotherapy ,etc have failed in curing completely the big C. How about mental illness? It`s next to impossible to cure a schizophrenic the paranoid type. The disease is even linked to being possessed by demons. So, if ever you get the big C or become ill mentally overnight, I`m doubt if doctors can cure you with what they learned in their study and practice of medicine. I even know personally of doctors themselves who succumbed to cancer. They spent millions of pesos for chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy & yet died in vain. So, when science fails where do you turn to? Of course you turn to God by asking God within yourself why there are so many diseases that can not be cured by medical science & yet can be cured by faith. The blind can see, the deaf can hear, the lame can walk, cancer cured, etc. If there`s ever a science which is very difficult to apply and do wonders it is in the field of medicine. In other words, scientists know they possess knowledge of unusual events, occurrences & nature of things by conducting trials and experiments to validate, document what they think can be explained. If they can explain the nature of cancer then why can they not find a single cure for it?

 

The cure for cancer may not be available now, maybe tomorrow, but science is making progress. When has faith re-grown an amputated limb?

 

[iNow]

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I recognise that the concept that I am proposing is not being understood.

Your proposed concept is understood perfectly. That is not the issue here. The issue is that your proposal is completely invalid for the reasons already described above. Merely repeating an invalid claim over and over will not magically make it true.

[Ophiolite]

So, when science fails where do you turn to?

Doctors are not scientists. They seem to be to hold the same relationship to scientists as do engineers: they apply the findings of science for practical purposes.

 

If they can explain the nature of cancer then why can they not find a single cure for it?

Are you, a trained medical man, seriously asking such a question! Cancer has multiple causes and it occurs in varied organs and it progresses in different ways. For these reasons no single cure is probable. Understanding the causes and processes involves deep understanding of biochemical processes and genetic control and cell functioning and on and on and on. In many cases we have olnly had the tools to properly study such things for a decade or so, or even less. It is ridiculous of you to ask such a question, if you ask it seriously.

[imatfaal]

It appears that we have here yet another argument from conflation and obfuscation. I am reluctant to believe that any counter argument will effectively change their mind. Good luck.

 

I would hope that you are wrong - but I fear and believe you will be shown to be correct

 

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I recognise that the concept that I am proposing is not being understood.

 

Your proposed concept is understood perfectly. That is not the issue here. The issue is that your proposal is completely invalid for the reasons already described above. Merely repeating an invalid claim over and over will not magically make it true.

 

iNow sums up the problem - we understand your argument, we believe it is logically ill-founded and factually inaccurate. At least four people have explained in different terms why any similarity between science and religion is illusory. It is now time for you to expand on you claim, it has been rejected with argument and explanations; what can you do to counter those rejections. If you truly believe that no one has recognized the depth and logic of your contention - then it behoves you to elucidate, maybe we can be convinced.

[rajakrsna]

Doctors are not scientists. They seem to be to hold the same relationship to scientists as do engineers: they apply the findings of science for practical purposes.

 

 

Are you, a trained medical man, seriously asking such a question! Cancer has multiple causes and it occurs in varied organs and it progresses in different ways. For these reasons no single cure is probable. Understanding the causes and processes involves deep understanding of biochemical processes and genetic control and cell functioning and on and on and on. In many cases we have olnly had the tools to properly study such things for a decade or so, or even less. It is ridiculous of you to ask such a question, if you ask it seriously.

 

 

Well, if I tell you I know how to cure cancer you will only laugh at me. Us, doctors, are not scientists? When we give a patient a medication for his illness and it fails even what it says in the medical book is the ideal treatment. Are not our patients guinea pigs? It`s only when we find the medication we give and the diagnosis matched and the patient is cured is we make a conclusion that the medication is indeed the ideal one. & you are saying doctors are not scientists? How about the doctors who use prisoners as the trial for a new vaccine say an Aids vaccine?

[Arete]

Us, doctors, are not scientists?

 

Simply being a practicing medical doctor does not automatically qualify you as a scientist. I work jointly between the school of Epidemiology and Public Health and the school of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. I interact with MDs, med students, medical scientists and evolutionary biologists on a regular basis.

 

Most practicing MDs do not conduct novel research and no, applying validated medical research in the form of treatments is not scientific research. Having been directly involved in the med school AND more traditional scientific disciplines I can confidently say that the training those destined to become MDs and those destined to research differs considerably. MDs are, generally speaking NOT research scientists nor are they trained to be. This is not said in any way to belittle MDs or that there aren't MDs who are also qualified to do research - but the job they do is distinct and different from research and thus, requires different training.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Arete

[rajakrsna]

Simply being a practicing doctor does not automatically qualify you as a scientist. I work jointly between the school of Epidemiology and Public Health and the school of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. I interact with MDs, med students, medical scientists and evolutionary biologists on a regular basis.

 

Most practicing MDs do not conduct novel research and no, applying validated medical research in the form of treatments is not scientific research. Having been directly involved in the med school AND more traditional scientific disciplines I can confidently say that the training those destined to become MDs and those destined to research differs considerably. MD are, generally speaking NOT research scientists nor are they trained to be. This is not said in any way to belittle MDs or that there aren't MDs who are also qualified to do research. - but the job they do is distinct and different from research and thus, requires different training.

 

 

Well, my father a retired professor in Pathology and Dermatology was a recipient of the Leonard Wood Memorial Foundation. My father and grandfather were researching on culture media for the M. leprae to grow outside the body. My preparatory Medicine is Medical Technology and we did blood cultures, prepare agar plates, etc. My father went to the USA in West Virginia, Washington DC on a scholarship grant by the LWM Foundation. He spent doing research work on leprosy from 1960-1963. & you say doctors, like my father is not a scientist? What really is your definition of a scientist?

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[Arete]

Well, my father a retired professor in Pathology and Dermatology was a recipient of the Leonard Wood Memorial Foundation. My father and grandfather were researching on culture media for the M. leprae to grow outside the body. My preparatory Medicine is Medical Technology and we did blood cultures, prepare agar plates, etc. My father went to the USA in West Virginia, Washington DC on a scholarship grant by the LWM Foundation. He spent doing research work on leprosy from 1960-1963. & you say doctors, like my father is not a scientist? What really is your definition of a scientist?

 

Re-read what I actually posted.

 

Professor =/= MD. Your father, if your description is accurate was a research scientist and not a typical medical doctor. A PhD or equivalent is generally the prerequisite for a professorship, not a medical doctorate.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Arete

[rajakrsna]

Re-read what I actually posted.

 

Professor =/= MD. Your father, if your description is accurate was a research scientist and not a medical doctor. A PhD or equivalent is generally the prerequisite for a professorship, not a medical doctorate.

 

 

My father ( 82 years old ) is a research scientist as well as a medical doctor because he was also treating the sick while at the same the researching on the nature of the disease, Leprosy. Collecting specimens and inoculating the bacteria on culture plates find out if they grow. You see, the Lepra bacilli can not survive outside the body ( in vitro) for long once it is exposed to air & heat from the sun.

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[iNow]

Meta: Readers can now see the common approach taken by theists in discussions like this. Instead of addressing the claims, criticisms, and questions of others, they will evade the conversation by going down tangents filled with completely off topic nonsense.

[rajakrsna]

Meta: Readers can now see the common approach taken by theists in discussions like this. Instead of addressing the claims, criticisms, and questions of others, they will evade the conversation by going down tangents filled with completely off topic nonsense.

 

What? What did you say?

 

 

 

[Villain]

Meta: Readers can now see the common approach taken by theists in discussions like this. Instead of addressing the claims, criticisms, and questions of others, they will evade the conversation by going down tangents filled with completely off topic nonsense.

 

I presume that this involves me, to which I reply: I created the topic in the section labelled Philosophy - Religion, you have posted on a thread which I created to discuss my idea on a topic of my own. No one force you to address the topic and since you had no idea of the intention as to why the topic was created, cannot proclaim as to whether or not the topic served it's purpose. Go assume that you know what is going on elsewhere.

[Phi for All]

I presume that this involves me, to which I reply: I created the topic in the section labelled Philosophy - Religion, you have posted on a thread which I created to discuss my idea on a topic of my own. No one force you to address the topic and since you had no idea of the intention as to why the topic was created, cannot proclaim as to whether or not the topic served it's purpose. Go assume that you know what is going on elsewhere.

!

Moderator Note

Villain, you don't get to decide who responds to this thread. You started it, but you do NOT own it.

 

If you feel someone has broken the rules in their response to you (or to anyone else), then use the report feature at the lower left of each post.

 

As to the posts you are questioning, this is a science forum. And even though we allow members to discuss philosophy and religion, if you make claims which can be refuted or contested using scientific methods, the rules state that you must either address the questions posed to you, or retract the claim. Please note that your opinions are your own, but they can't be stated as fact unless you can back them up.

 

Do NOT respond to this Modnote.

[Villain]

In closing - Apparently the human aspect of science, which is the human study of nature and our environment, should exclude any debate on human influence of it. Science is obviously something that is done by non-humans (although I don't have proof of this, hmmm...) and our interpretation and understanding and relating to it from a human perspective has no place in the debate there of, I repeat, the human study of nature etc.

 

My purpose was never to call science into repute as to its validity but highlight that we as humans must make a choice to believe science even if its by means of believing that logical thought is the best way of concluding such. The idea that a choice could be made as to whether or not a creator exists is by know means in competition to science, unless your choice for logical thinking doesn't meet your expectation of a creator, this does not prove that a creator doesn't exist though.

 

 

 

[iNow]

One does not "believe" science. As has already been explained to you elsewhere, science is a methodology, not an ideology. Further, one cannot choose what they believe or do not believe. People are compelled to believe something based on the evidence or facts or information availble and how those facts align with their other experiences with the world. The point, however, is that belief is not something that people choose, but is instead something that people are compelled to hold based on their personal experiences and education. There is no choice on this topic, only the delusion of choice. The entire foundation of your premise is broken.