Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Frozen Britain - NASA Satellite image Jan. 7


acidhead

Recommended Posts

No, that is fundamentally not true I am afraid.

Feel free to search the papers I have posted and provide a good critique them, you can point out why they are based on faith not evidence.

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7))

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature. Individuals and social exhibit order; may be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes. Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. (See Sjoberg and Nett previous link)

Since we cannot prove any of these prerequisites for science to be valid, we take it on FAITH, that is we trust, that they are true and will remain so. Science IS based on faith.

Edited by IamsSon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mattshark

    36

  • IamsSon

    19

  • Moon Monkey

    12

  • danielost

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Since we cannot prove any of these prerequisites for science to be valid, we take it on FAITH, that is we trust, that they are true and will remain so. Science IS based on faith.

No, that is fundamentally not true. Science is not based on faith is best on best answer from the evidence around us. You computer wasn't developed through faith, genetic engineering wasn't developed through faith, you car doesn't work thanks to faith.

You can't prove you exist either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is fundamentally not true. Science is not based on faith is best on best answer from the evidence around us. You computer wasn't developed through faith, genetic engineering wasn't developed through faith, you car doesn't work thanks to faith.

You can't prove you exist either.

Matt, in order for us to use science we have to assume that "Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order." Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my very basic knowledge of the stratosphere... doesn't it filter out the sun rays? Based on earths position during summer it would make us warmer. If it were winter, wouldn't that make us colder?

I actually don't buy Al Gore's crap. I think he's trying to make money, but this is just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, in order for us to use science we have to assume that "Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure. Laws of nature describe order." Correct?

Which are based on observation. Observation based assumptions are not faith. Pretending they aren't like that with our reason would be faith and unscientific. Sorry, but science isn't based on faith at all. It is based on evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which are based on observation. Observation based assumptions are not faith. Pretending they aren't like that with our reason would be faith and unscientific. Sorry, but science isn't based on faith at all. It is based on evidence.

Assumption

n.

  • The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
  • The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
  • The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
  • Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
  • Presumption; arrogance.
  • Logic. A minor premise.

If you are basing your observations on something which you have to accept as being valid without being able to prove it, then you are engaging in FAITH.

Yes, as far as we have observed, Nature does seem to be orderly, but we cannot prove it was so at some point in time when we were not there to observe, or in some location where we are not there to observe or that it will continue to be so in the future. We trust it will continue to do so, but since we do not know it will, then we are engaging in FAITH any time we act on the assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are basing your observations on something which you have to accept as being valid without being able to prove it, then you are engaging in FAITH.

Yes, as far as we have observed, Nature does seem to be orderly, but we cannot prove it was so at some point in time when we were not there to observe, or in some location where we are not there to observe or that it will continue to be so in the future. We trust it will continue to do so, but since we do not know it will, then we are engaging in FAITH any time we act on the assumption.

No, actually that is just going on all available evidence, science always leaves caveats for change. But that fact is nothing is 100% provable. That doesn't make science faith based and no matter how many times you repeat it, it is not going to make it true, the assumptions are based on evidence, the universe has not shown itself to not act in those ways so it is not faith to have them continue doing so when they have always done so. Expecting them not to continue in the same way would be an act of faith.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/intro_01

Look through here and please garner an understanding of science.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually that is just going on all available evidence, science always leaves caveats for change. But that fact is nothing is 100% provable. That doesn't make science faith based and no matter how many times you repeat it, it is not going to make it true, the assumptions are based on evidence, the universe has not shown itself to not act in those ways so it is not faith to have them continue doing so when they have always done so. Expecting them not to continue in the same way would be an act of faith.

http://undsci.berkel...rticle/intro_01

Look through here and please garner an understanding of science.

But you don't know that they've always done so. Currently we accept the age of the universe to be over 13.5 billion years, and the age of the Earth to be over 4.5 billion years, while modern man has been around recording his observations about 10,000 to 12,000 years. That means that we have really no way of knowing whether the assumptions we currently hold to as we use science were actually so through 99.99991% of the universe's existence! If I tried to convince you that God is real because I had observations that validated 0.00009% of God's existence you would laugh me off the forum, and yet you are perfectly willing to accept that because these assumptions have held true for 0.0009% (if we assume that they were holding when man first began to scratch figures on caves) of the existence of the universe, they are as good as absolutely true. Talk about faith.

Edited by IamsSon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you don't know that they've always done so. Currently we accept the age of the universe to be over 13.5 billion years, and the age of the Earth to be over 4.5 billion years, while modern man has been around recording his observations about 10,000 to 12,000 years. That means that we have really no way of knowing whether the assumptions we currently hold to as we use science were actually so through 99.99991% of the universe's existence! If I tried to convince you that God is real because I had observations that validated 0.00009% of God's existence you would laugh me off the forum, and yet you are perfectly willing to accept that because these assumptions have held true for 0.0009% (if we assume that they were holding when man first began to scratch figures on caves) of the existence of the universe, they are as good as absolutely true. Talk about faith.

Not really. They may not hold true for other solar systems, but they hold true for ours and for this reason scientific study has provided us with many, many benefits. I'm sorry but your argument is incorrect as is your deduction. It would be an act of faith to assume they don't, it is logical to assume they do because observation has not shown anything else.

Modern humans probably about 195000 years ago btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. They may not hold true for other solar systems, but they hold true for ours and for this reason scientific study has provided us with many, many benefits. I'm sorry but your argument is incorrect as is your deduction. It would be an act of faith to assume they don't, it is logical to assume they do because observation has not shown anything else.

You can't even be sure they have always held for our solar system not even for your local neighborhood. It IS faith to assume they have.

Modern humans probably about 195000 years ago btw.

Yes, but recorded history (observations recorded by humans) go back around 12,000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even be sure they have always held for our solar system not even for your local neighborhood. It IS faith to assume they have.

No, it is observation. Sorry but repeating you think it is faith doesn't make it faith.

Yes, but recorded history (observations recorded by humans) go back around 12,000 years.

And we have sciences that allow us to ascertain information from before that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't even be sure they have always held for our solar system not even for your local neighborhood. It IS faith to assume they have.

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a theoretical form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#See_also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is observation. Sorry but repeating you think it is faith doesn't make it faith.

Yes, observations that depend on the basic assumptions being true. If those basic assumptions are not true, then the observations are corrupt, but we have no way of knowing they are, so our only options is to TRUST (have faith) that they are true.

And we have sciences that allow us to ascertain information from before that period.

Yes, but that science rest on the FAITH that the basic assumptions are true.

Now I'm starting to really wonder. You're a scientist and you never learned about the basic assumptions of science? I learned about them in Jr. High or High School Science class, didn't you? And I attended a public Jr High and High School so they are not part of some anti-science Fundy agenda.

Edited by IamsSon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, observations that depend on the basic assumptions being true. If those basic assumptions are not true, then the observations are corrupt, but we have no way of knowing they are, so our only options is to TRUST (have faith) that they are true.

No, the assumption is based off what we have observed. Sorry but no matter how often you repeat the same incorrect point, it still remains incorrect.

Yes, but that science rest on the FAITH that the basic assumptions are true.

Now I'm starting to really wonder. You're a scientist and you never learned about the basic assumptions of science? I learned about them in Jr. High or High School Science class, didn't you? And I attended a public Jr High and High School so they are not part of some anti-science Fundy agenda.

Did I say that these assumptions don't exist? Nope.

Sorry but you are just wrong in you summation of how it works. You repeating the same incorrect point over and over again doesn't give it credence.

The assumptions are based on what we have observed. We have seen nothing to the contrary and this is why science works. That is not faith, that is going on the evidence available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the assumption is based off what we have observed. Sorry but no matter how often you repeat the same incorrect point, it still remains incorrect.

Yes, the assumptions are based on what we've observed but if those assumptions are not true, then what we've observed is invalid.

For example, if the reality is that some phenomena do not have natural causes, then any observations based on the assumption that all phenomena are based on natural causes are incorrect and invalid.

Or if it turns out that nature is not orderly, then any observations based on the assumption that nature is orderly are incorrect and invalid.

Put it any way you want, you can observe things which support the assumptions all day long, but you cannot KNOW the assumptions are true, and so you are left TRUSTING--having faith--that they are true. The fact that our faith that the assumptions are true has not been challenged to date doesn't make the assumptions true, it just means so far they have not let us down.

Did I say that these assumptions don't exist? Nope.

Did I say you said these assumptions don't exist? Nope. I just said asked if you'd learned in school about them.

Sorry but you are just wrong in you summation of how it works. You repeating the same incorrect point over and over again doesn't give it credence.

The assumptions are based on what we have observed. We have seen nothing to the contrary and this is why science works. That is not faith, that is going on the evidence available.

The assumptions are based on what we've observed, BUT if those assumptions are incorrect, then our observations are invalid, especially those "observations" which are completely based on the validity of the assumptions, namely anything that happened before we began to make scientific observations or which we assume to be happening elsewhere in the universe.

"We thought we knew everything about everything, and it turned out that there were unknown unknowns." - Richard Fisher, Director of NASA's Heliophysics Division

Edited by IamsSon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes America is getting colder, well done Iams.

Who's heroes? You don't even know anything about me to make such a silly comment....................

but then you think cold weather in winter is indicative of the planet not warming, which is laughable.

Not our coldest winter since the 70's btw, it is our coldest since 1981.

i see the weather man doesn't know what he is talking about. or is this channel only about entertanment too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the assumptions are based on what we've observed but if those assumptions are not true, then what we've observed is invalid.

For example, if the reality is that some phenomena do not have natural causes, then any observations based on the assumption that all phenomena are based on natural causes are incorrect and invalid.

Or if it turns out that nature is not orderly, then any observations based on the assumption that nature is orderly are incorrect and invalid.

Put it any way you want, you can observe things which support the assumptions all day long, but you cannot KNOW the assumptions are true, and so you are left TRUSTING--having faith--that they are true. The fact that our faith that the assumptions are true has not been challenged to date doesn't make the assumptions true, it just means so far they have not let us down.

It also means that accepting what we have observed repeatedly with out contradiction is not faith.

Did I say you said these assumptions don't exist? Nope. I just said asked if you'd learned in school about them.

You certainly implied.

The assumptions are based on what we've observed, BUT if those assumptions are incorrect, then our observations are invalid, especially those "observations" which are completely based on the validity of the assumptions, namely anything that happened before we began to make scientific observations or which we assume to be happening elsewhere in the universe.

"We thought we knew everything about everything, and it turned out that there were unknown unknowns." - Richard Fisher, Director of NASA's Heliophysics Division

That doesn't support your faith claim. You are simply conjecturing that if we are wrong science will have to change to fit new observations. You are not making an argument that science is faith based.

Any such claim of science being faith based is purely felonious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see the weather man doesn't know what he is talking about. or is this channel only about entertanment too.

Our coldest winter, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, since 1981.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our coldest winter, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, since 1981.

so you call the weather man wrong because he stated the coldest in the usa since the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you call the weather man wrong because he stated the coldest in the usa since the 70s.

No, you misunderstand. I was pointing that in the UK it is not the coldest winter since the 70's.

On that note, we don't even have any snow now. It went in Belfast over a day, last 2 days it has been 4-6°c here. Typical, we get nice snow, think it might last, 2 days later it is blinkin raining again :(

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you misunderstand. I was pointing that in the UK it is not the coldest winter since the 70's.

On that note, we don't even have any snow now. It went in Belfast over a day, last 2 days it has been 4-6°c here. Typical, we get nice snow, think it might last, 2 days later it is blinkin raining again :(

well you guys do have the gulf stream out there.

but i have lived here in waco for 7 years and it seems to be getting colder. this year i have been cold, sat. it was 9 degrees at 6 in the morning. the norm around here is 30 to 40 this time of year. don't know what that is celsius. oh by the way i don't get cold easily normally has to below 20 or have a good wind chill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also means that accepting what we have observed repeatedly with out contradiction is not faith.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, it is. Just because God has answered my prayers consistently does not mean I have proven God is real, right? You are still TRUSTING the assumptions to continue to be true, the next second, and the next hour, and the next day, week, month, year, century, etc., you don't know they will be. You can ASSUME they will because they have so far, but it is still just an ASSUMPTION. Your are still simply TRUSTING that the assumptions will hold true.

You certainly implied.

No. I asked if you had ever learned about the basic assumptions of science since you seem to be insulted by the fact that science is ultimately based on faith that certain things will hold true and have always done so.

That doesn't support your faith claim. You are simply conjecturing that if we are wrong science will have to change to fit new observations. You are not making an argument that science is faith based.

Any such claim of science being faith based is purely felonious.

You can squirm all you want, but if you are having to trust something to remain true without being able to know it will, you are engaging in faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well you guys do have the gulf stream out there.

but i have lived here in waco for 7 years and it seems to be getting colder. this year i have been cold, sat. it was 9 degrees at 6 in the morning. the norm around here is 30 to 40 this time of year. don't know what that is celsius. oh by the way i don't get cold easily normally has to below 20 or have a good wind chill.

We do indeed, we even have palm trees!

The main body of the US is getting colder, NASA's site should confirm that for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do indeed, we even have palm trees!

The main body of the US is getting colder, NASA's site should confirm that for you.

you do understand that the earth is closest to the sun this time of year right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I asked if you had ever learned about the basic assumptions of science since you seem to be insulted by the fact that science is ultimately based on faith that certain things will hold true and have always done so.

That is not at all how science works brother. Faith is not used sometimes hope but not faith. Science has to follow strict guide lines or it would not be science. Science did not pray for anything to happen, it is a well thought out process that science may or HOPE there science holds up to theory. If so than it was not an act of a devine being but a well thought out process. Science does not pray. The scientist may pray but thats because of the individual.

Edited by The Silver Thong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.