Tricky One

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Tricky One

Post by MichaelXY » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:07 am

I ran across this question in one of my books.
If an explanation is not scientific, does that mean it is not true?

I am thinking, everything can be explained by science, but many things are subjective. What about religion? Hmm

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:48 am

If an explanation is scientific, does that mean it is true?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Post by MichaelXY » Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:44 am

Well scientific explanations are often found to be untrue such as, continental drift, and I see your point, but I am still befuzzled by this question. This question seems silly to me. I can explain how I got my name, and it would be true, and it would have nothing to do with science.

I am sure there is a point to be learned by this question, but I have yet to see it.

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:33 pm

I think the point is that scientific processes work by observation and induction with really no claims on truthness. A theory is solid if it is justifiable within the context of other theories and the predictions based on it are consistent.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Post by MichaelXY » Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:09 pm

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:53 pm

Continental drift is untrue? Since when?

Anyway, laws of physics that we recognize as truth were not scientific truths until they were put through the scientific process.

But, if someone were to state them, without any supporting evidence, they would still be true even though they weren't scientific yet.

Likewise, if all scientific observations point to a particular truth, and it is declared as such, there is still the possibility that it isn't actually true
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Post by MichaelXY » Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:27 pm

Continental drift is untrue? Since when?


Since plate tectonics around the 1960's.
But let me add that schools kept teaching CD up into the seventies. I think your age is showing:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

mcar
Coral
Coral
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:58 am
Location: Pilipinas a.k.a. Three Stars and a Sun (300, 000 sq Km)
Contact:

Post by mcar » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:06 pm

Here comes our hypothesis, theory, and law.
Opinion enters too. Science is governed by natural laws, and these laws must be able to explain such. Since we have hypothesis and theories, here comes research. Science has still tentative conclusions and is falsifiable--characteristics of science.

Science is neutral on religion--that is it does not favor one over the other.

User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Post by AstusAleator » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Hmmm, I must have misunderstood the definition of continental drift.

I took it to address of the movement of continents as a result of plate tectonics... ie pangaea breaking into subcontinents, India slamming into Asia, etc.

After reading the wiki you linked, I see that the term continental drift existed before tectonics, but that rather than disproving it, tectonics explained it and solidified it...

So really while some of the older explanations for continental drift may have been disproven, it still exists, as explained by plate tectonics.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

onexsoul
Garter
Garter
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:23 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Tricky One

Post by onexsoul » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:55 am

MichaelXY wrote:I ran across this question in one of my books.
If an explanation is not scientific, does that mean it is not true?

I am thinking, everything can be explained by science, but many things are subjective. What about religion? Hmm


no
have u ever read the story about the athist professor and the christian student? he asks the kid that according to science his God did not exsist since he could not hear, touch, see and such him
so the kid asks the students if they had ever heard, seen, touched, and such the professors brain. they had not so according the laws of science to this college students the professors brain did not excist

SO! no its doesnt mean that it isnt true... but that is my opinion and many people have dissagreed about this subject

User avatar
MichaelXY
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 885
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:03 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca

Post by MichaelXY » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:06 am

We could see, touch and such his brain if we cut his skull open. From past experience of other researchers though, we already know he has a brain.

onexsoul
Garter
Garter
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:23 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by onexsoul » Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:11 am

MichaelXY wrote:We could see, touch and such his brain if we cut his skull open. From past experience of other researchers though, we already know he has a brain.

yes BUT the students did not have the time NOR the reasources to do so and so from their own knowledge his brain did not excist HOWEVER they beleived he had a brain only because we know humans have brains. But if we did not know that humans had brains, then we could not know he had a brain
there is evidence that a higher diety excists and scientist need to admit that much more often

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests