(January 30, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Drich Wrote: So tell me some more about how science is different than religion.

Glad you asked.

1) Science requires evidence. Religions don't. Indeed, looking for scientific evidence to support your religious belief is evidence that you lack faith.

2) For a theory to be accepted scientifically, the evidence must be reviewed by peers and found substantial. For an assertion to be accepted in a religious sense, the listener need only be a simpleton who doesn't ask questions. Not that all believers are, but that is the minimal requirement.

3) When you ask questions in science, you often learn things. When you ask questions in a church, you get ostracized ... or worse.

4) Science works. You're typing your anti-science screed on a computer, and posting it to the internet. Religion, on the other hand, does not work. You can test this yourself: turn off your computer, think of your reply to this post of mine, and pray for it to appear in this thread without you using the tools science has devised for such a purpose.

I guarantee you that you will get better results using the products of scientific technology than you will putting your faith in your god. I guarantee it.

5) When a theory is accepted but then later found to be incorrect, scientists discard it and go to work finding a better explanation for the phenomenon under study. Religion, on the other hand, adheres to dogma, even in the face of countervailing evidence. Science is self-correcting; religion is doomed to remain incorrect.

There's more, and I could go on, but I know I'm already pushing your reading ability to its limit, so I'll let you absorb this for the time being.

Hope that helped.

Scientific method: using evidence and reason.

Any other method: making shit up.

Everyone uses the scientific method in almost everything they do, all the time. If you didn't you wouldn't be able to open a door, walk in a straight line, work out how much money you have, catch the bus... Etc etc. Imagine using "faith" for any of those things. It's just they revert to these "other methods" when they really want something to be true but there is no good reason to believe it actually is true.

The other methods are more flexible, you can prove literally anything you want. With no effort. Sadly, the results are worthless.

Drich-
"What makes you think I am not a member of the empire?
The Only way to say their is no Empirical Evidence for God is to change the meaning of the word 'Empirical.' Because as it stands with merrium Webster it simply points to any evidence/data based in observation OR Experience. As I have said many times I have experienced God.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical"

Empirical evidence cannot be subjective, meaning if you are attempting to prove the truth of your claim with empirical evidence then the observations and experiences will be empirically true for anyone, Personal experience is not considered empirical evidence.

(January 30, 2015 at 2:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: Scientific method: using evidence and reason.

Any other method: making shit up.

Everyone uses the scientific method in almost everything they do, all the time. If you didn't you wouldn't be able to open a door, walk in a straight line, work out how much money you have, catch the bus... Etc etc. Imagine using "faith" for any of those things. It's just they revert to these "other methods" when they really want something to be true but there is no good reason to believe it actually is true.

The other methods are more flexible, you can prove literally anything you want. With no effort. Sadly, the results are worthless.

I agree with that. I don't think it's so easy to delineate between science and faith in practice. The stuff on the extemes is easy to classify, but there is alot in the middle between science and faith. I can sympathize with Drich, because he believes for reasons, and he has continually tested and refined his beliefs throughout his life. That's somewhat like science. It's different from somebody who believes simply because he/shee never bothered to think or question.

Of course, I probably don't understand some of the subtleties about the scientific method. Maybe there is a clearer difference if I understood better.

Empirical evidence is something I can pick up, carry to you and put on display for all to see, i.e., tangible.

(January 30, 2015 at 2:07 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 1:53 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Drich is trying to cram his religion into the evidence rather than looking at the evidence and seeing what is most likely.
What he is doing is the opposite of science.

Hydron collider heello...

'Science' built this 100 billon dollar/euro crap fest on the idea that the little collider they had was not 'big enough' to see the particals they wanted to see. So on the 'faith' they had in what they found, they set out to build a bigger/better version. So fast forward 10/15 years what do we have? essentially what we had before.
The same particals the same understanding (Same evidence as before) just somehow more resolve that their faith in what they believe is true.
(I say faith because this partical still has not been documented.)

So tell me some more about how science is different than religion.

They built the collider because they couldn't take their ideas on faith. They needed to be tested and proved by the gathering of evidence.
If they had not found what they had theorized then they would have had to adjusted the theory or discarded it entirely. The polar opposite of religion which claims to have all the answers and no proof and if the evidence doesn't fit the religion then the evidence must be wrong.

You thinking religion is similar to religion is laughable.

(January 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: I agree with that. I don't think it's so easy to delineate between science and faith in practice. The stuff on the extemes is easy to classify, but there is alot in the middle between science and faith.

There is? Like what? Are you confusing questions that are simply not yet answered with something else?

Quote:I can sympathize with Drich, because he believes for reasons, and he has continually tested and refined his beliefs throughout his life. That's somewhat like science. It's different from somebody who believes simply because he/shee never bothered to think or question.

Tested? No, it is nothing like science. He has no objective or empirical evidence. What is he measuring any test against?

Quote:Of course, I probably don't understand some of the subtleties about the scientific method. Maybe there is a clearer difference if I understood better.

I think you are very likely correct in that assessment.

(January 30, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: I can sympathize with Drich, because he believes for reasons, and he has continually tested and refined his beliefs throughout his life. That's somewhat like science. It's different from somebody who believes simply because he/shee never bothered to think or question.

Tested? No, it is nothing like science. He has no objective or empirical evidence. What is he measuring any test against?

Imagine you're a child. You get rained-on, and you notice the sky is grey and cloudy. Eventually you begin to think grey cloudy skies often result in rain.

Imagine you're a child again, and your mother tells you things that always seem to be true. Eventually you begin to trust your mother's wisdom.

I read a book about the philosophy of science a year or two ago. The author seemed to conclude that science is very hard to define.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to address the question of Drich's reasoning. He claims to have discovered that following the Bible leads to measurable positive results in his life. That's similar to a child learning that grey skies mean rain. Also Drich claims that his methods will work for anybody. That's a little bit like making his results available for peer review. Of course if I can't confirm his results, I'm sure he will tell me that I need to keep trying ... over and over and over. He will never admit that his claims are bogus. (That's where I see the difference between science and faith.)

Of course, I should highlight another of the "other methods" which is pseudo science. This is a method which uses a lot of scientific sounding words and/or complicated arguments. However, the terms are misused and often deceptively so, and the arguments are riddled with logical fallacies.

Of course, someone can genuinely attempt to use the scientific method, but be utterly incapable of doing it properly. This may be due to any number of factors such as lack of critical skills, lack of knowledge or innate bias.

(January 30, 2015 at 7:26 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: He claims to have discovered that following the Bible leads to measurable positive results in his life. That's similar to a child learning that grey skies mean rain. Also Drich claims that his methods will work for anybody. That's a little bit like making his results available for peer review. Of course if I can't confirm his results, I'm sure he will tell me that I need to keep trying ... over and over and over. He will never admit that his claims are bogus. (That's where I see the difference between science and faith.)

The problem is that his "peer review" relies on accepting his premises in order to validate his results.

I should hope the problems with such an approach are obvious.

Many of us here have tried Drich's recommendations in the theistic portions of our lives, only to find nothing. He will say that we found nothing because we stopped looking, which is simply another way of stating that faith is a requirement for believing. Amazing, isn't it?

If I've looked everywhere in the kitchen for my car keys, four times over, should I take a fifth look just in case they've popped up in the last three minutes? Why should a god which is alleged to permeate the entire universe be harder to find than a set of car keys? An omnipresent god should make the sun seem minor.