Scientific theory defined

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by Bubba

That is what makes the difference between truth and facts...the truth isn't as absolute as we think it is, it is colored by our perceptions. Somebody could tell me that their wife is beautiful and they are telling the truth. But if I disagree, does that make me a liar?

That is where facts come in. Facts are stubborn things, they are verifiable. Facts don't change with the political mood. Once you know the facts the truth becomes obvious.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. As such, I will argue that even facts are colored by perceptions and beliefs. For instance, it's a fact that the holocaust occurred, right? Yet there are those that firmly believe it didn't. To those of us who believe it's true, it's a fact. To those who don't, it's not.

Again, I ask: is there a truth that supercedes belief?

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by TigerEyes

JW, that leads to a very interesting philosophical question: If we believe something, does that make it true?

No
This is why I question life in general. I realize that its perceptions that are put in the written word or other media, so I have to glean from it, my understanding of whatever it is. And trust me, I don't understand alot! But I do just try to understand where its coming from or what caused this or that. Then the brain shuts down and says NO MAS, NO MAS.
And what is truth? Is it absolute, irregardless of someone's belief in it?

There is the question of a life journey. There is no way to know some things because the truth changes, I think.
Now if you catch your husband in bed with your best friend thats the truth, however you can go into denial and say, well maybe they were just wrestling. You know what I mean, I can't explain what I'm trying to say. Our brains protect us from the truth I recon. I know I can't handle it sometimes.

[Flying Dutchman]

There is also a difference between historical fact and scientific fact. Historically Jericho existed. Scientifically it was destroyed by an act of nature, not by trumpets. Factually there are bushes that grow in the dessert where Moses was that secrete a flamable oil and do burst into flames in the dessert heat. This causes them to germinate. So science can prove that it is plausible for what Moses encountered therefore adding credence, not debunking, that the event occured. The problem is that religions based upon the Bible have to take it at face value. If you go proving that events occured, but were natural in nature, then it takes God out of it unless you have an enlightened view of God. These religions are not based upon an open minded view of God, but as a black and white view.
A quote I read lately, but cannot remember by whom, puts the religious thing in perspective for me:
Keep your eye on the man nailed to the cross, not the man in front of him.

Bible = "No doubt it is in fact our oldest source of information"

Wrong. There are much older books, legends, religious beliefs. They also have flood stories, by the way -- always thought it was probably the creation of the Black Sea that started those legends -- and, given that Moses probably didn't exist, talk of the Red Sea is really past the point of myth to begin with.

Of course, the Christian Old Testament, being completely changed from the Hebrew version, even in the books in it and their order, means that if you don't read very old hebrew, you aren't getting the story as it was written anyway.

Again, holding any book as totally true, and any religious beliefs as the ONLY truth, stops rational decisions right at the beginning.

[Detector]

No doubt it is in fact our oldest source of information

Let me clarify my statement. The stories in the bible predate the writing of the bible often by thousands of years. Obviously carvings on cave walls predate the bible. What I meant was the bible is probably our oldest source of information that attempts to explain who we are and where we came from.

I think the problem is people fear the bible. I think if science could debunk the bible they wouldn't hesitate to do so. They fear the bible because those who have tested it find it does indeed contain factual information about real events. The fear is this will only add legitimacy to it. Not that God spoke from a burning bush but that science can prove such a bush does exist that could have been interpreted just as the bible says.

The reason I say this is because science uses many other sources of information that speak of gods and dragons, yet they find value in the writings.

Where are the Aristotle's of today? It seems to be a member of the country club of science you either conform to the excepted science methods or be banished as a quack. Some times I think people of science have no concept of history. Our most famous and celebrated men of science were those who were willing to step outside the excepted theories in search of the truth. Those who were willing to put not only their reputations but often their lives on the line to say "The earth is not flat nor the center of the universe"

Isn't science about finding the facts no matter where it comes from or who it supports?

Like so many other government funded organizations science is now controlled by politics. Its really ashame that being politically correct in science is more important than finding and reporting the facts.

[Reddemons54]

Detector, I really think you have gone and confused yourself. The Bible contains some factual HISTORICAL information. There is no Science in the book. Of course Science can't debunk the Bible. The Bible exists because of faith. As long as people believe in it then Science has no chance to tell them it is incorrect. Science has nothing to do with being politically correct. Currently is cloning, stem cells, etc etc politically correct? I think not, yet science is responsible for all of it. You mention Aristotle, Newton, Tesla, etc as men who stepped outside the box of what was the accepted theories. Now their theories are accepted. Scientists are always doing this. There is no bigger reward to a scientist to have his name associated with the likes of these men. Honestly, after several years of study, now pending my graduation with a degree correlated in Science, I believe you have been far lost in the idea of what science is and isn't.

[TigerEyes]

Originally Posted by Reddemons54

There is no bigger reward to a scientist to have his name associated with the likes of these men.

I disagree.

There is no bigger reward to a scientist than to figure out something no one else has figured out. Talk about an adrenaline rush...!

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by TigerEyes

I disagree.

There is no bigger reward to a scientist than to figure out something no one else has figured out. Talk about an adrenaline rush...!

Uh yeah, thats how you get your name to be recognized like the others.

[Detector]

Is Archeology not a branch of science? Is history not a branch of science?

I believe science is more a method used in many fields rather than a specific field.

Science, systematic study of anything that can be examined, tested, and verified. The word science is derived from the Latin word scire, meaning “to know.”

Tell me the bible has nothing of interest to Archeology. Can you not examine, test, and verify places of the bible?

By politically correct I was referring to how anything stamped religious has no place in science. To that I say BS. Its simply politics.

[Reddemons54]

Originally Posted by Detector

Is Archeology not a branch of science? Is history not a branch of science?

I believe science is more a method used in many fields rather than a specific field.



Tell me the bible has nothing of interest to Archeology. Can you not examine, test, and verify places of the bible?

By politically correct I was referring to how anything stamped religious has no place in science. To that I say BS. Its simply politics.

History to me is not a branch of science. Archaeology, possibly, but I think that is even pushing it. About the only thing scientific about archaeology is its dating methods, IMO.