NationStates Jolt Archive

Is science knowledge? Both scientists and Creation Scientists have facts on their side, and weld them like weapons in debate against each other. Recent debates have highlighted that there are two vastly different schools of thought about what science is, and both are included in dictionary definitions. One looks at science as the body of conclusions drawn from experimentation and empirical observation. Here, science is the things we know, and hence can know. Anyone who can observe can do science. The other school looks at science as the method used to collect and analyse information. Here, science is the process, a tool used by professionals to take things from a state of 'unknown to us' to 'something known to us'. Here, the whole world is knowable but not entirely known. Which one is real 'science'? Both? Neither?

(Poll coming)

Science is a way to get rid of wrong explanations, using *both* of the schools of thought you described.

Science is a process of making sense of reality. Scientific theories aren't the facts themselves but models created to make sense of facts and propose a relationship between facts.

science is the accumulation and falsifying of theories which hopefully get closer and closer to the 'truth'. occasionally concrete facts will emerge from this process.

I think that 'science is a process for acquiring and collecting knowledge', the first could apply to maths or history, the second, I don't agree with as there are a few 'theories' that aren't really based on much knowledge, and the fourth, is much like the third, but if it were only about attaining knowledge, then there would be little point in doing experiments in school, that we know the outcome of, as you're not gaining any new knowledge.

Anyway, in response to your question I'd say both. Science can be the conclusion to something, but more often I would say science is used in order to gain more scientific knowledge. Does that make any sense? Probably not...

science is the accumulation and falsifying of theories which hopefully get closer and closer to the 'truth'. occasionally concrete facts will emerge from this process.

It should, however, be noted that this supposed progression towards the 'truth' is an asymptotic one.

Is science knowledge? Both scientists and Creation Scientists have facts on their side, and weld them like weapons in debate against each other. Recent debates have highlighted that there are two vastly different schools of thought about what science is, and both are included in dictionary definitions. One looks at science as the body of conclusions drawn from experimentation and empirical observation. Here, science is the things we know, and hence can know. Anyone who can observe can do science. The other school looks at science as the method used to collect and analyse information. Here, science is the process, a tool used by professionals to take things from a state of 'unknown to us' to 'something known to us'. Here, the whole world is knowable but not entirely known. Which one is real 'science'? Both? Neither?

(Poll coming)
I was not aware that Creationism used any facts beyond the facts of the existence of the Bible and creationists' belief in its content.

Science is a process of elimination. A pheomenon is observed, and an explanation for it is proposed based on the observed facts. That explanation is then subjected repeatedly to multiple tests to see if it actually works or doesn't as an explanation of the observed phenomenon. It may take many hundreds of years to disprove theories (like the flat earth theory) but the process never, ever stops. A theory is only as good as the latest round of tests it passes.

Obviously one can prove scientifically that the Bible exists and whether someone is likely being honest when they say they believe it to be true. But one cannot test the statements in the Bible because one cannot recreate the phenomena it claims to explain. We can't ask god to create the world again to prove he could do it in the time described, for instance.

This constant testing and proving/disproving is antithetical to faith. I was under the impression that religion is about faith and that this was the primary difference between religion and science.

This constant testing and proving/disproving is antithetical to faith. I was under the impression that religion is about faith and that this was the primary difference between religion and science.

Currently religion tries to create some overlap, by doing its own research.
However, the goal of "religious science" tends to be to prove its own hypotheses right, seeking supporting evidence - instead of attempting to prove their hypostheses wrong and seeking negating evidence, as the natural scientists are supposed to do. The difference between these two schools of thought is much greater.

I am in the "science is a tool to learn about the world around you" camp. I think that science can be used to answer questions about the physical world and it is helpful in learning how we interact with our environment and also learning about why things are the way they are (cause/effect). I don't believe that science is knowledge, you can gain knowledge through science, but science itself is just a tool for learning. There is knowledge to be gained outside of science, and there are questions that science can't answer. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge, but it's a good place to start if you are wanting to gain some.

Creation Scientists have facts on their side

nah

nah

Sure they do. Then again, so do people that say that George W. Bush is made of cheese, that the moon does not exist and that the earth traverses the galaxy on the backs of 4 elephants, standing on a turtle.

Of course, there also exist facts that are not on those peoples sides. But who cares about those ?

Sure they do. Then again, so do people that say that George W. Bush is made of cheese, that the moon does not exist and that the earth traverses the galaxy on the backs of 4 elephants, standing on a turtle.

Of course, there also exist facts that are not on those peoples sides. But who cares about those ?

wait, what exactly are 'facts' then? cause it was my understanding that facts are bits of information about the world. as far as i am aware creationists hold many lies, misrepresentations, imaginings, and downright silly presumptions, but seem incapable of holding true beliefs about physical reality in so far as they are related to creationism. they make a lot of factual claims, but i'm not actually aware of any that are true.

I was not aware that Creationism used any facts beyond the facts of the existence of the Bible and creationists' belief in its content.
Creationism doesn't, but Creation Science does. It uses facts in an attempt to discredit the Theory of Evolution. It may not use them correctly, but it does use them.

Creationism doesn't, but Creation Science does. It uses facts in an attempt to discredit the Theory of Evolution. It may not use them correctly, but it does use them.

in order for a factual claim to be a fact, it must be true, right? creationists certainly make lots of factual claims. but i can't even remember the last time i heard a creationist say something true.

wait, what exactly are 'facts' then? cause it was my understanding that facts are bits of information about the world. as far as i am aware creationists hold many lies, misrepresentations, imaginings, and downright silly presumptions, but seem incapable of holding true beliefs about physical reality in so far as they are related to creationism. they make a lot of factual claims, but i'm not actually aware of any that are true.

Some examples of true facts that support the creationists:
- Humans (and most other forms of life aswell) are quite complex
- Purposeful design can result in quite complex things
- A proces of random chance is less likely than a proces of intelligent design to produce complex functioning systems
- There exist similarities between many different species
- Some vastly different species depend on eachother for reproduction and survival (e.g. bees and flowers)

None of these facts actually *proves* the IDers claims of course. Nor do they actually contradict evolution. And they can just as well be used by other hypotheses that contradict ID.
But they are facts. And they do fit with creationism.

Science is the search for an accurate understanding of the universe by repeatable verification of falsifiable hypotheses, akin to approaching the truth through successive approximation.

Creationism is not science. No-one at a Christian fundamentalist lobby is going to walk into the coffee room and announce "Guys, the latest observations just got published and it appears that god is unnecessary in explaining the origins of life. We're going to have to cut that project at the next review."

in order for a factual claim to be a fact, it must be true, right? creationists certainly make lots of factual claims. but i can't even remember the last time i heard a creationist say something true.
That is true of a claim of factuality; however, my statement was about facts. Facts are information, and information can be abused.

That is true of a factual claim; however, my statement was about facts. Facts are information, and information can be abused.

ok, sure. but the facts themselves are still things that actually are, right? so a factual claim that is false is not a fact, but an error/mistake/lie/whatever.

so which facts are they abusing? cause all i see are falsehoods.

As I expected, the first and fourth option are less popular. For those who did not select them, why did you not select them?

(Armistria already replied. Thanks. ;))

ok, sure. but the facts themselves are still things that actually are, right? so a factual claim that is false is not a fact, but an error/mistake/lie/whatever.

so which facts are they abusing? cause all i see are falsehoods.
No disagreement whatsoever. A fact is a statement of truth.

I amended my post to "a claim of factuality," because that was what I thought you originally addressed, as opposed to a factual claim that must necessarily be a fact.

And I reiterate that Creation Science wields facts in its war against the Theory of Evolution. The Alma Mater mentioned a few.

Abuse comes in the use of the fact to support other ideas.

You are quite right. Faith uses facts to to reinforce itself, but without repeated measurement, obervation or a consistent peer-reviewed process. Anyone can take a fact and claim it supports some idea. "The sky is blue. Don't you see, it isn't any other colour! You must embrace Jesus Christ!" That's all Creationism comes down to. Claiming that because something is the way it is, there must be a god. Why that particular god? Why not several? Here it breaks down. It is incapable of describing the very mechanism it posits. Really, if you cannot describe and observe the mechanism you suggest as an explanation for a series of effects, you have lost the argument. You are not doing science.

Some examples of true facts that support the creationists:
- Humans (and most other forms of life aswell) are quite complex
- Purposeful design can result in quite complex things
- A proces of random chance is less likely than a proces of intelligent design to produce complex functioning systems
- There exist similarities between many different species
- Some vastly different species depend on eachother for reproduction and survival (e.g. bees and flowers)

None of these facts actually *proves* the IDers claims of course. Nor do they actually contradict evolution. And they can just as well be used by other hypotheses that contradict ID.
But they are facts. And they do fit with creationism.

well, at least one of them isn't actually a fact. nor are those actually the factual claims used by creationists. they say things that sound like a few of them, sometimes. but they differ in important particulars. the factual claim they make isn't "life is quite complex", but rather "life is too complex to have arisen by evolution".

and that is when they are even close to actual facts. usually it's all a bunch of "these fossil tracks show humans and dinosaurs walking together" or "the speed of light has been slowing down" or "fossils are arranged in an order consistent with how fast things ran uphill away from the flood".

well, at least one of them isn't actually a fact. nor are those actually the factual claims used by creationists. they say things that sound like a few of them, sometimes. but they differ in important particulars. the factual claim they make isn't "life is quite complex", but rather "life is too complex to have arisen by evolution".

and that is when they are even close to actual facts. usually it's all a bunch of "these fossil tracks show humans and dinosaurs walking together" or "the speed of light has been slowing down" or "fossils are arranged in an order consistent with how fast things ran uphill away from the flood".
Well, can you dispute the evidence being presented? I agree, each individual argument alone can seem weak. Overall however I find it difficult to look at all that evidence and say it's all worthless abuse of facts. Evolutionists claim all sorts of evidence in their favor, but where is it? Don't mention the fossil record, it will be of no use to you. Too many gaps, and carbon-14 dating isn't even reliable. My apologies if the word "gaps" brings an unpleasant thought.

well, at least one of them isn't actually a fact.

Which one ?

well, at least one of them isn't actually a fact. nor are those actually the factual claims used by creationists. they say things that sound like a few of them, sometimes. but they differ in important particulars. the factual claim they make isn't "life is quite complex", but rather "life is too complex to have arisen by evolution".
I would say rather that that is another idea, a conclusion in fact, that the prior fact can support.

I would say rather that that is another idea, a conclusion in fact, that the prior fact can support.
Actually, it is a conclusion based on an assumption of the limits of what evolution does. There are no facts that define the limits of what can be done via evolution.

Also, even if you decide to accept the idea that god directed creation, which is not proven, it still does not follow that evolution was not the means he used to do it. Many very religious people believe that evolution is god's tool for creation. What proof do you have that this is not so?

Actually, it is a conclusion based on an assumption of the limits of what evolution does. There are no facts that define the limits of what can be done via evolution.

Also, even if you decide to accept the idea that god directed creation, which is not proven, it still does not follow that evolution was not the means he used to do it. Many very religious people believe that evolution is god's tool for creation. What proof do you have that this is not so?
I am not arguing in favour of nor against Creationism. The topic is 'What is science?'

That is true of a claim of factuality; however, my statement was about facts. Facts are information, and information can be abused.
Precisely, which is why science puts itself to so much trouble to test and prove or disprove statements that purport to be facts or theories in explanation of facts.

Religion does not put itself to that trouble because it doesn't deal with facts and is not concerned with their limitations. This only causes trouble for religion when it tries to turn itself into fact. It's not geared to work like science.

Here's the fundamental difference:

Science starts with a pile of facts and looks for an explanation that fits all of them. It also assumes that it doesn't know the full explanation and has not yet collected all the facts, so whatever explanation it comes up with is subject to constant retesting in case new facts prove it wrong.

Religion starts with an explanation that is fully composed and complete. It then looks for facts that fit the explanation. Any facts that do not fit the explanation are discarded. If it were a science, those misfit facts would trigger a re-examination of the explanation. That doesn't happen in religion. Religion does not test itself and never assumes it might be wrong.

Creationism (sorry, but I don't accept a difference between that and "Creation Science"; they are two sides of the same coin) also does not re-examine or question its initial premise, whichi is that god made the world as described in the bible, no matter how many facts fail to fit that premise. Therefore, it is not a science.

I am not arguing in favour of nor against Creationism. The topic is 'What is science?'
I was just trying to say that the statement "evolution could not produce such complex systems" is an assumption, not a fact.

Also, I was trying to show that creationism also argues that god did not choose to use evolution to create the world. This is another assumption and not a fact.

If we agree that science studies facts to test theories and reach explanatory conclusions about the world, then the prevalence of assumptions being used instead of facts indicates that creationism is not a science.

Precisely, which is why science puts itself to so much trouble to test and prove or disprove statements that purport to be facts or theories in explanation of facts.

Religion does not put itself to that trouble because it doesn't deal with facts and is not concerned with their limitations. This only causes trouble for religion when it tries to turn itself into fact. It's not geared to work like science.

Here's the fundamental difference:

Science starts with a pile of facts and looks for an explanation that fits all of them. It also assumes that it doesn't know the full explanation and has not yet collected all the facts, so whatever explanation it comes up with is subject to constant retesting in case new facts prove it wrong.

Religion starts with an explanation that is fully composed and complete. It then looks for facts that fit the explanation. Any facts that do not fit the explanation are discarded. If it were a science, those misfit facts would trigger a re-examination of the explanation. That doesn't happen in religion. Religion does not test itself and never assumes it might be wrong.

Creationism (sorry, but I don't accept a difference between that and "Creation Science"; they are two sides of the same coin) also does not re-examine or question its initial premise, whichi is that god made the world as described in the bible, no matter how many facts fail to fit that premise. Therefore, it is not a science.
Personally, I would agree with that if you replaced each instance of the word "religion" with "Creation Science". However, the topic is 'What is science?' So what do you think? Is science primarily knowledge, or the method of aquiring it, or as some have suggested the act of aquiring it?

I was just trying to say that the statement "evolution could not produce such complex systems" is an assumption, not a fact.
I would say it is a conclusion not an assumption, though not necessarily a logical conclusion. The statement, though, was not the topic, just an example of how facts can support other ideas.

Personally, I would agree with that if you replaced each instance of the word "religion" with "Creation Science". However, the topic is 'What is science?' So what do you think? Is science primarily knowledge, or the method of aquiring it, or as some have suggested the act of aquiring it?
What do you mean by "knowledge"? There a several ways to understand that word. For instance:

If by knowledge you mean factual information about the systems of the world, then science is both a tool for acquiring knowledge and the act of acquiring it, as well as the route towards it because each piece of factual knowledge opens up access to more factual knowledge.

But if you mean understanding -- as in insight into why things are the way they are -- then science can only give limited answers, such as why water evaporates, why fire is hot, etc. It cannot tell us why life exists. It cannot reveal meanings to things. It does not assume there is a "meaning" to a butterfly. It's only job is to observe the butterfly and describe what it is doing and explain why it does that and how it does it. Science may also be able to explain why human beings think butterflies are pretty. And it may explain the process and mechanisms by which butterflies and humans came into being. But it cannot say that any of that -- the beings or the processes -- have any "meaning" for anyone.

That's religion's job. Philosophy competes for that job, sometimes. Science never does.

So what kind of knowledge are you talking about?

I would say it is a conclusion not an assumption, though not necessarily a logical conclusion. The statement, though, was not the topic, just an example of how facts can support other ideas.
Science tries to avoid illogical conclusions. For instance, if you first ask what is science and then compare science and "creation science" and ask if they are both science, then it is legitimate for respondents to say, as part of their answers, whether they do in fact think "creation science" is a science. It seems logical to conclude that that was part of your question.

Now if it wasn't, then that's a new fact that triggers a re-examination of our theory as to what your question was. :)

What do you mean by "knowledge"? There a several ways to understand that word. For instance:

If by knowledge you mean factual information about the systems of the world, then science is both a tool for acquiring knowledge and the act of acquiring it, as well as the route towards it because each piece of factual knowledge opens up access to more factual knowledge.

But if you mean understanding -- as in insight into why things are the way they are -- then science can only give limited answers, such as why water evaporates, why fire is hot, etc. It cannot tell us why life exists. It cannot reveal meanings to things. It does not assume there is a "meaning" to a butterfly. It's only job is to observe the butterfly and describe what it is doing and explain why it does that and how it does it. Science may also be able to explain why human beings think butterflies are pretty. And it may explain the process and mechanisms by which butterflies and humans came into being. But it cannot say that any of that -- the beings or the processes -- have any "meaning" for anyone.

That's religion's job. Philosophy competes for that job, sometimes. Science never does.

So what kind of knowledge are you talking about?
I meant knowledge as in "stuff we know," which is the whole body of factual information. That would be reflected in a "yes" or checkmark answer to the first item in the poll.

Out of curiosity, did you answer the poll, and which items did you pick? Why did you exclude any particular items?

Science tries to avoid illogical conclusions. For instance, if you first ask what is science and then compare science and "creation science" and ask if they are both science, then it is legitimate for respondents to say, as part of their answers, whether they do in fact think "creation science" is a science. It seems logical to conclude that that was part of your question.

Now if it wasn't, then that's a new fact that triggers a re-examination of our theory as to what your question was. :)
Heh. Science does, indeed, avoid anything but logical conclusions. That is its strength. It's rather amusing I think that a lot of misunderstanding about science is in assuming that it makes illogical conclusions, presumably because the logic is not apparent to someone. At least, I cannot imagine why else --perhaps this thread will help reveal more. Perhaps my amusement is misplaced. (I am very curious as to why so many people, including many reasonable and rational ones, could buy into Creation Science.)

I was just trying to say that the statement "evolution could not produce such complex systems" is an assumption, not a fact.

it's not really an assumption either. it's a factual claim that happens to be false. it could be a fact, if it were true.

Real Science responds to "knowledge" with questions. It's about exploring the depths of our understanding and putting it to the test.

it's not really an assumption either. it's a factual claim that happens to be false. it could be a fact, if it were true.
Facts cannot be false. Facts can only be true, or they are not facts.

I would say rather that that is another idea, a conclusion in fact, that the prior fact can support.

a true conclusion to an argument about the universe would itself be a fact.

but in this case, the statement isn't ever stated as a conclusion to a sound argument. most often, it's used as a premise.

Facts cannot be false. Facts can only be true, or they are not facts.

I believe that's what he said, there's fact, then there's factual claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

a true conclusion to an argument about the universe would itself be a fact.

but in this case, the statement isn't ever stated as a conclusion to a sound argument. most often, it's used as a premise.
Right; and a conclusion that is not true is not a factual claim. This is why I qualified earlier a "claim of factuality" rather than a "factual claim". If it is not a conclusion to a sound argument, then it may be an assumption or an illogical conclusion depending on its context. An assumption is made at the beginning of or during a process of inquiry, a conclusion is the outcome or product of our inquiries.

I believe that's what he said, there's fact, then there's factual claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
But a claim made based on facts is not necessarily a factual claim. That is, facts can lead to other ideas that are not necessarily facts.

Maybe this will make it clear: a factual claim cannot be false. If it's factual, that means they got it right.

Darn. There were some good replies here last night that were deleted in the latest purge. Can you who replied re-post please? I only had time for a glance last night, and wanted to read it today.

[x] Science answers questions using knowledge.

Creationists are certainly *not* scientists, since they are basing themselves on ridiculous assumptions and fairy tales like the existance of a god who created everything as it is right now.

Sure they do. Then again, so do people that say that George W. Bush is made of cheese, that the moon does not exist and that the earth traverses the galaxy on the backs of 4 elephants, standing on a turtle.
Hey, that's true! If you fall over the edge of the world, you can actually see the elephants and the turtle! :D

I chose everything. Including Other- which for me is that Science is good for Disproving things as well. This is where I think the ID people fall down in the scientific department. They are one-sided in their pursuit of proof.

The facts have to be related to each other and follow some kind of logic for a Factual Statement to be factual. A lot of what is presented in their arguments involve false syllogisms and unproven assumptions. This is not science.