> follow the logic behind the theory, look at how it was tested, see how
> the supporting evidence was analyed and how the conclusions are drawn.
Yes. You can. In your field. But I, for example, may not be able to.
So I have to have faith that you (and the other people know know more
about it than I do) are right. If I'm not smart enough to understand
the precepts, you cannot prove it to me the same way you can prove it to
someone who does understand.
> Basic stuff. Of course I cannot comment on other fields of research
> unless I have some background in it. At the same time I can look at a
> theory and apply some basics of the scientific method, and follow some
> of the philosophy of science's reccomendations, ie is it falsifiable
The idea of falsifiablity as a litmus test is, in general, a good one.
For the most part, I agree with it. However, I will point out that
there are ideas in science that are not, using currently available
methods, strictly provable. Like subatomic particles whose demostration
requires higher energy yeilds than we can produce, or the structure of
the inside of a black hole.
Then there's the question of social sciences like anthropology and
sociology. Is history science or faith? Many things are theoretically
falsifiable, but there's no consensus on what would constitute proof for
or against.
> for instance. In this case how do you concieve of an experiment that
> doesn't support creationism, as it is currently modeled. You cannot.
> Therefore it cannot be considered to be a scientific theory. Thus it
> should not be taught in a science class.
I'm not arguing that it should. I think religion should be left for the
family and, if applicable, church to teach. I think that evolution
should be taught in school.
I'm simply saying that, for the common man, science requires faith.
--Ben
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
