"Science vs. Religion: What Scientist...

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

There are 40754 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 22, 2012, titled "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think". In it, Examiner.com reports that:

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6284 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You speak like an angry religious person. Why are you constantly babbling nonsense?
If you are able to prove me wrong then I will humbly change my view.
I made a very specific claim about falsifiability in natural science. Are you able to prove me wrong???
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.

Stop playing around NephilimFree ... oh wait, ShockofGod I mean.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#6285 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
There is no evidence that falsifiability has any merit.
Absolutely nobody can come up with any hypothesis of the natural that is unfalsifiable.
Falsifiability has failed.
Sure it works , there are many hypothesis and theory that have failed
by falsification.

One was the "spontaneous generation" of life .
Others include

The Geocentric model of the solar system.
Luminiferous aether.
The Rutherford model of the atom.
The Steady State Theory.

there are many many more.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6286 May 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.
Karl Popper's definition which is adopted by science is fine by me. You can use it. You will still be empty handed. Please do try.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#6287 May 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you made an assertion using your own personal definitions of words and concepts for which you set unreasonable limitations and specifications on.
Stop playing around NephilimFree ... oh wait, ShockofGod I mean.
The pet whisperer and humble brother are a brain free zone.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6288 May 25, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Sure it works , there are many hypothesis and theory that have failed
by falsification.
One was the "spontaneous generation" of life .
Others include
The Geocentric model of the solar system.
Luminiferous aether.
The Rutherford model of the atom.
The Steady State Theory.
there are many many more.
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6290 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.
You were the one asking for one, so if you are making the assertion yet cannot find one, then you are either completely brain dead or lying through your cyberteeth.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6291 May 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
You were the one asking for one, so if you are making the assertion yet cannot find one, then you are either completely brain dead or lying through your cyberteeth.
So you give up? You accept that you can not come up with one?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6292 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So you give up? You accept that you can not come up with one?
All scientific theories can be falsified. You said that they can't, not I, not anyone on here with half a brain, you said it. It is up to you to prove your assertion, I succeed by not proving it.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#6293 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That's not the issue here. The issue is that an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist, it is an impossibility.
Now you are constructing word salads.
A unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#6294 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
There is no evidence that falsifiability has any merit.
Absolutely nobody can come up with any hypothesis of the natural that is unfalsifiable.
Falsifiability has failed.
I'm sure Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave. Putz.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6295 May 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
All scientific theories can be falsified. You said that they can't, not I, not anyone on here with half a brain, you said it. It is up to you to prove your assertion, I succeed by not proving it.
So in your desperation you cling to the straw man. I have not said that the scientific theories can not be falsified. I have said just the opposite.

What I have said in this thread is:
- no one here seems to know the difference between a nested hierarchy change that falsifies and a nested hierarchy change that does not falsify the theory of evolution
- an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural DOES NOT EXIST, you can not come up with one
- the falsification requirement of science is redundant due to the above
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6296 May 25, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Now you are constructing word salads.
A unfalsifiable hypothesis is unscientific period.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist. Period. There is no such thing. Any hypothesis of the natural you come up with is falsifiable. Period.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6297 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So in your desperation you cling to the straw man. I have not said that the scientific theories can not be falsified. I have said just the opposite.
What I have said in this thread is:
- no one here seems to know the difference between a nested hierarchy change that falsifies and a nested hierarchy change that does not falsify the theory of evolution
- an unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural DOES NOT EXIST, you can not come up with one
- the falsification requirement of science is redundant due to the above
No, you tried to goad people into another pointless argument, so I just played your game, by your own rules. You are using double speak, so I shall use fallacy until you stop using double speak.

An unfalsifiable claim is one like "god did it." Also any claim made without evidence to support it. These are not hypothesis because they are not falsifiable. Thus the requirement that all scientific claims must be falsifiable, they have to be testable by others, or verifiable. To be verifiable the evidence must be supported by facts. Facts themselves are not always the evidence though.

Are you still keeping up? If a claim is made with no evidence that can be tested or verified by outside sources and opponents, then it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. If you want a non-falsifiable claim, creationism is the perfect example, if you want a non-falsifiable hypothesis, you won't get one.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6298 May 25, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
No, you tried to goad people into another pointless argument, so I just played your game, by your own rules. You are using double speak, so I shall use fallacy until you stop using double speak.
An unfalsifiable claim is one like "god did it." Also any claim made without evidence to support it. These are not hypothesis because they are not falsifiable. Thus the requirement that all scientific claims must be falsifiable, they have to be testable by others, or verifiable. To be verifiable the evidence must be supported by facts. Facts themselves are not always the evidence though.
Are you still keeping up? If a claim is made with no evidence that can be tested or verified by outside sources and opponents, then it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific. If you want a non-falsifiable claim, creationism is the perfect example, if you want a non-falsifiable hypothesis, you won't get one.
I find it quite funny that you always revert to babbling all sorts of things without really making an actual argument. As stated before, science deals with the natural not supernatural.

Do you believe that it is possible to create an hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable? Yes or no?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#6300 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
An unfalsifiable hypothesis of the natural does not exist. Period. There is no such thing. Any hypothesis of the natural you come up with is falsifiable. Period.
....and therein lies the beauty of science. Now all you have to do is identify a scientific theory that predicts something will occur and demonstrate that it will not occur.

Loved your corpuscular theory of light and your bubble chamber theory. Your exponential decay of knowledge theory was also a beauty. Too bad they all turned out to be cráp. Back to the drawing board, as they say.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6301 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with your stupid babbling and present an hypothesis of the natural that would not be falsifiable!
Claim:
No one can come up with an hypothesis of the natural that would not be falsifiable.
If you want to prove me wrong. Please present your unfalsifiable hypothesis.
An unfalsifiable hyptothesis? How about that there is an undetectable spaceship that is controlling my cats? How about that the universe came into existence last Thursday with all of our memories?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#6302 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it quite funny that you always revert to babbling all sorts of things without really making an actual argument. As stated before, science deals with the natural not supernatural.
Do you believe that it is possible to create an hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable? Yes or no?
Did you finally admit that you're having sex with a donkey? YES or NO

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6303 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
So then, where goes the line between falsification and not falsification when there's a change required?
When changes that need to be made hit at the fundamental aspects of the theory. As an example, take classical mechanics, F=ma. Energy is conserved; matter is conserved; the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts; time is the same for all observers; space is the same for all observers. Special relativity changed *all* of those basic assumptions of classical mechanics.

In contrast, statistical mechanics was originally based on classical mechanics. It explained things like temperature, the ideal gas law, entropy, etc in classical terms. It was shown to be wrong when the heat capacities of gasses wasn't predicted correctly. Well, it turns out that if you take the *same structure* of statistical mechanics, but use quantum mechanics instead of classical as the base, the predictions correspond with reality. So this was a 'relatively small' change to the overall theory that large-scale properties are statistical results of small-scale properties. Once the correct small-scale was found, the theory worked.
No one seems to be able to answer. You people have drowned yourselves in vagueness.
No, you simply see things in terms of black and white where it isn't appropriate.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6304 May 25, 2012
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it quite funny that you always revert to babbling all sorts of things without really making an actual argument. As stated before, science deals with the natural not supernatural.
Please explain the difference and why science can't deal with the supernatural.
Do you believe that it is possible to create an hypothesis of the natural which is unfalsifiable? Yes or no?
See above.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#6305 May 25, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
An unfalsifiable hyptothesis? How about that there is an undetectable spaceship that is controlling my cats? How about that the universe came into existence last Thursday with all of our memories?
Ah. Finally someone to try.

Spaceship:
You have created a false premise "undetectable", it's a vague definition that if is within the natural is impossible. Stealth technologies beyond someone's ability to detect may exist but it is falsifiable by countering your specific stealth technology, unless you are speaking of something supernatural.
It may take a long time to detect your spaceship, but in time it will be detected.

Universe popped into existence last Thursday:
So you mean by supernatural creation? If you're asserting supernatural then of course it is unfalsifiable. Please stay within the natural.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 24 min Trumping On 315
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 54 min VetnorsGate 10,596
Sql server database 5 hr valmostricay 1
News Wind energy sweeps plains; course correction in... (Jan '09) 6 hr bpayne37 20
How to retrieve deleted texts on iphone 4s 10 hr AnnieChow 1
How to transfer video from ipad to computer ? 10 hr AnnieChow 1
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 11 hr North Mountain 168
More from around the web