"Science, all the woo you want" Topic

A very good video that explanes science.

YouTube link

Nice

I lasted 20 seconds.
Besides, I hate woo.

Very nice.

"Guess and test," I'm going to remember that, for use when I have to explain the scientific method to some of my more monosyllabic relatives.

I lasted 20 seconds.

Okay, John, but I don't want to hear any more questions like, "How do scientists *know* those things?"

:)

I have "done" Science. It is a disciplined approach to choosing the proper facts that prove your grant proposal.
There is also the slandering of your vile competitors, etc.

In other words, it is a HUMAN activity, neither more nor less noble than any other HUMAN activity.
Too many scientists see it as a secular religion, and that somehow it has more access to Truth than other activities. Seeking Consensus and browbeating opposition to your imagined Consensus is not a proper search for Truth.

In MY day, we accused other "Researchers" of not properly cleaning their glassware, to account for different results.
YMMV

Just one example.
The Internets were full of stuff the other day about linguistics scientists had found "root words" that were "15,000 years old".
One link had them recited in various "language groups". To MY ear, they sounded nothing alike. But, I am of course, "not a scientist, so do not understand."
Imaginative manipulation of mathematics is one of my pet peeves with "Science".

And, "This rock comes from Mars, and THAT one from Mercury!"
Why? Because it's not where it's supposed to be.

Obviously I did not rise high enough to learn the secret handshake, or get the robes. I did have my slide rule stolen and the buttons ripped off my lab coat, though.

If you ever hear me say that I am being called for Jury Duty, it might be a good idea for someone here to alert any and all lawyers in my area, so they have a good reason to kick me off the panel. I don't believe a word the "experts" say.

John it might be easier if you just watched the whole video.

But John gives such good rant.

John, is it comfortable being that ignorant?

Ignorance of certain pet theories (note – NOT FACTS)
is bliss.

That doesn't mean that millions won't be spent in
'research' which will ultimately prove fruitless.

That doesn't mean that millions won't be spent in 'research' which will ultimately prove fruitless.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

"Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think."

Two of my favorite quotes from Thomas Edison

Obviously I did not rise high enough to learn the secret handshake, or get the robes.

I didn't, either. But I read a lot – A LOT, pro, con, and neutral – on all sides of the issues I care about. Enough to draw my own conclusions without dismissing all "experts" out of hand. I might still be wrong, but at least I did some investigation.

I also don't think you're half as cynical as you pretend to be, John, you old FM, you.

Whenever someone lectures me about (cue choir tones) "Science" (end tones), I usually find that they understand very little of it themselves.

Science is a tool, and an important one, but it is not infallible, and just because someone labelled as a "scientist" claims something is so doesn't mean it is so. The history of science itself is filled with proof of that.

I also think that these days in certain fields the discipline of science is becoming rather lax, relying far too heavily on computer models rather than actual observation and experimentation. Some of the worst culprits are those who think a small experimental environment can be "scaled up" simply via computer modeling to an actual real-world or global application. Computers are good, but they're not that good, especially for extremely complex simulations. At some point the programmer is operating on assumption and/or incomplete information, and at that point the model becomes useless, its conclusions faulty and its scientific validity nonexistent.

Case in point: A few years ago I was watching a report on genetically modified livestock. At one point they focused on an effort to produce genetically modified salmon that could be farmed and would produce larger fish with more meat. As there were concerns about the effects if a genetically modified salmon escaped into the wild and bred with natural salmon, the modifications were designed to always produce sterile males. This wasn't enough to satisfy one activist, though. He produced a computer model that showed these sterile males nevertheless overcoming their sterility due to mutation, escaping into the wild and rendering the natural salmon species extinct. In the course of the interview he bragged about how at first his model didn't produce such results, but he changed the model until it produced the results he expected. Neither he nor the interviewers nor the producers of the show at anytime gave any indication that they understood that what the man had done rendered his computer model completely useless, or that his actions were completely the opposite of sound scientific principle and ethics. No, he was "against the right things," so his so-called "scientific model" was treated as accurate proof of his claims— whereas the science of those developing the fish through actual, careful experimentation and observation was presented as dangerous, unsound, and unprincipled.

But you describe the computer modeler to be an activist.
--
Tim

John, is it comfortable being that ignorant?

Is it comfortable for you being intolerant of dissent?
Here, I thought that those who espouse "Science" as a superior way of thinking had open minds! Thank you for proving me wrong.

John it might be easier if you just watched the whole video.

Sorry. I have no time for shiny and cute graphics, combined with game show host voice overs.

You are just upset that I do not share your "religious" views.

"Too many scientists see it as a secular religion,…"

I have never heard a scientist describe science as a religion. But I do hear many idiots trying to slander science by calling it one. Why would science want to be demoted to the level of superstition anyway?

‘ … and that somehow it has more access to Truth than other activities.'

Ummm. Science does give more access to the truth than other activities. Try figuring out the age of the Universe without science. Or how to harness electricity. Or (insert literally millions of examples here). That is the point of science. We find out stuff. True stuff.

'Seeking Consensus and browbeating opposition to your imagined Consensus is not a proper search for Truth.'

You're right. That is not science. Therefore that is not a criticism of science, it is a criticism of something else. There are certainly examples of bogus science being passed off like this, but the really cool thing is science has ways of uncovering them and eventually the truth will out.

And yes, it is a human activity (as far as we know anyway). It is entirely possible other species somewhere else practice science. And if ‘science' works, they will get the same results from their experiments.

'I lasted 20 seconds.
Besides, I hate woo.'

Can't resist temptation to make the ‘That's what she said' comment here.

But you describe the computer modeler to be an activist.

Yes— I described him that way, because in behavior and action, that is what he was. The show did not call him that, but treated him as if he was a valid researcher, despite the painfully obvious flaw in his "research." To the producers, he was a legitimate scientist, whereas those working on the genetic project were somehow suspect— one gathers because he was "concerned only about the environment," whereas obviously the fish farm group wanted "profit." Ironically, the fish farm group were motivated in part by a desire to come up with a solution to over-fishing (and not just of salmon), particularly off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. They actually were pursuing a real solution to a serious ecological problem, whereas the "lone researcher" was effectively trying to maintain the status quo, which was a looming ecological disaster! And no one connected with the show recognized this state of affairs.

Here's the kicker— it was a PBS special report on GM foods (including pest-resistant corn, etc., etc.). Every segment of the report followed the same pattern: They would report on the actual science guiding the development of the crop (or what have you), with interviews of the engineers and scientists working on it, and then go to activists (always presented as crusader "scientists") who would then put forth arguments against the work of the previous group— yet never were the previous groups approached with these objections or asked about them (even though in many cases they indeed had already instituted solutions, which were invariably criticized by the anti-GM activists, just as in the example I gave).

Note that at no point did the anti-GM people ever offer solutions to the problems the GM scientists were attempting to address. They were just opposed, always predicting doomsday scenarios on the flimsiest of speculations. If one solution was offered, they would simply speculate out another disastrous result. And at no time did the report ever question their claims or give any in-depth analysis of their research or "theories." All were accepted at face value, and given equal or greater weight than the GM scientists' work, regardless of actual evidence, and certainly without any thought to the Scientific Method— Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, Analyze. (How do you observe something that hasn't happened before? How do you arrive at a gross conclusion and call it "scientific," if you haven't and can't run any experiment to verify it? Yet that's essentially what the opposing scientists did on every issue.)

So while I agree that science is indeed the tool we should use to get at fact, I have no illusions at all that all scientists are indeed gathering fact over opinion, especially when politics becomes attached.

Nor, by the way, is Science the answer to all Truth, or all questions of mankind. Science answers only the How questions of existence. It is a logical fallacy to assume it therefore answers the Why.

There are indeed questions science cannot – or probably cannot – answer. See ‘When the clock struck zero – science's ultimate limits' by J.G. Taylor for a discussion on this.

However it is a particularly glaring logical fallacy to suggest that just because science cannot answer something, that means some other method can. It is an (other method) of the gaps approach.

However, if your hypothesis is that some other method can reveal truths about the universe, provide an example. Of course, that would have to be testable in order for you to prove you have found a truth.oh wait, that would be science.

People claim they know the ‘truth' all the time: conspiracy theorists, religious types, quack doctors. But if it ain't testable, it is just opinion.

Some questions may be unanswerable. Making up stuff is another method certainly, does not mean what is made up is correct. It may be, but if we have no way of knowing, then we have no way of knowing.

Why would science want to be demoted to the level of superstition anyway?

Logical fallacy, and begs the question. While superstition can indeed be a part of religion, it can also be a part of science. It occurs when someone speculates as to a cause in a way that is either untestable or based on insufficient evidence, and then proceeds to use that speculation in support of scientific arguments. It can be further compounded by philosophical or political views (see my post above). Happens all the time, unfortunately.

Religion, however, if purely defined, is simply the search for meaning and purpose— the attempt to answer the Why that science cannot answer. It is also an inescapable part of the human condition, as it consists of the moral, ethical and philosophical views of any individual— even those who claim to have no religion invariably have a view of the world and their place within it, and what "should" be valued and what "should not." You yourself reveal just such a world view in your statement— placing an entirely unscientific value on "Truth" and on science as the path to it, and equally devaluing religion and, yes, superstition at the same time. While I might agree with you on the elevation of Truth and the devaluation of superstition, on what scientific basis am I making that evaluation? I cannot scientifically prove that either is more valuable than the other, or even inherently valuable at all. Even if I say one is "preferable" because it produces "preferable results," again, there is no science in that statement— there is merely subjective opinion. And therefore that subjective opinion cannot be scientifically superior to an opposing opinion. That evaluation is entirely outside the realm of Science. It relies on something else— and that something else is the heart of religion, for good or ill. Science is solely about the way things are. Religion is about how they should be. (And yes, both can get those answers very, very wrong.)

I do not think you know what ‘logical fallacy' means. You make a huge one in assuming that because can't answer all our questions, then religion – or anything else – must be able to. BZZZZT. Now there's a logical fallacy in spades.

Superstition is just a belief in the supernatural. All religions that I know of fit that description. They may be right about it, so their superstition may be right, but it is still superstition.

And no, superstition cannot be part of science. Scientists can certainly have superstitions, and it can influence their work or sure, but it is not science and will be exposed as unscientific eventually. Newton's many superstitions do not invalidate his scientific work.

But I repeat my challenge stated above. If non-science can investigate and find the truth, please give an example.

Religion may be a search for meaning and purpose, but how do you know when you have found it? Even if 100% correct? How is reincarnation more – or less – ‘true' than eternal life in heaven, snuffing out, becoming a God, torment in hell or any of the other competing ‘truths'. We have no way of knowing without some objective measure – a scientific method.

Frankly the ‘there is no such thing as truth anyway' fallback poition, which I am seeing more and more from Creationists in particular, is simply the last refuge of religious types who have lost every other argument.

rankly the ‘there is no such thing as truth anyway' fallback poition, which I am seeing more and more from Creationists in particular, is simply the last refuge of religious types who have lost every other argument.

When did I say that? I don't recall such. Of course there is a "true" or "factual" answer to certain questions— including the existence of the supernatural. What I merely pointed out was that your elevation of "Truth" as more valuable than an other position is not something that Science can either answer or support. It is an entirely subjective viewpoint, and therefore inherently a religious one— or a philosophical one, if you prefer that term. They mean the same thing, when you get down to the core of it all, despite the fact that most people (religious or self-styled "non-religious") don't bother to examine either far enough to understand that.

Superstition is just a belief in the supernatural. All religions that I know of fit that description. They may be right about it, so their superstition may be right, but it is still superstition.

Like, say "multiple universes" or "branes" or the "cosmos"? All are, by definition, outside the realm of nature (that is, our universe) and are therefore by definition, "supernatural". They are also completely unprovable and untestable. One either believes in them or one does not. No evidence whatsoever is available to establish their existence, and in fact such evidence is likely fundamentally impossible— science has its limits. Are the physicist who argue for them therefore engaging in "superstition?"

But even then, I disagree with your premise. "Superstition" does not mean "belief in the supernatural," certainly not in the context of its typical usage and the connotations inherent in its use. "Superstition" means belief in apparently unrelated causes and effects, sometimes expressed in supernatural terms (but not always). Someone who exhibits triskaidekaphobia is certainly revealing superstition, but is he necessarily displaying a belief in the supernatural? If you blow on dice before you roll them, if you wear a "lucky" shirt, are you expressing belief in the supernatural? I'd call that a very thin stretch. Likewise, glomming that connotation onto religion is merely a rhetorical attempt to dismiss any deeper examination by creating a straw man argument. "Oh, you just believe in magical hokum," without actually seeking to know or understand what someone actually does believe. Not very scientific, that.

Creationists

You're projecting. I didn't bring that up, nor did anyone else, nor did I say or give any indication that I either am or am not a "Creationist." But to clarify, I assure you, by the definition and connotations you give the term, I am not one.

And no, superstition cannot be part of science. Scientists can certainly have superstitions, and it can influence their work or sure, but it is not science and will be exposed as unscientific eventually. Newton's many superstitions do not invalidate his scientific work.

A valid point, with which I happen to agree. However, I was unclear in my meaning in what I wrote. Science (as a discipline, or an ideal, call it what you will) of course does not have room for superstition. However, science as practiced and professed has always been as susceptible to superstition and any other discipline— and by "superstition" I mean unfounded assumptions based on wishful thinking or biases, from whatever cause— the unrelated cause and effect. The researchers in my example above revealed it in spades, to borrow your phrase. My point was a warning not to assume that all scientists are immune from projecting effects and causes onto assumed correlations. It is as dangerous to deify a scientist as anyone else. (By the way, I am not accusing you of doing this. But I'm sure you can think of plenty of scientists whose words are treated as infallible by those who think a lab coat is the attire of gods.)

If non-science can investigate and find the truth, please give an example.

Okay; here are several: Justice is superior to injustice. Mercy is superior to vengeance. Liberty is superior to tyranny. Love is superior to hate. Compassion is superior to indifference. Logic is superior to illogic. Truth is superior to falsehood.

Do you believe these to be true? I do. But they cannot be proven with science.

Other things that cannot be proven with science, yet are true:

The Taj Mahal is beautiful.
The night sky is glorious.
The laughter of a child is pure joy.
The Ave Maria is one of the most beautiful songs ever written.
My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world.

"But those are subjective," you will say. Of course they are— but they are no less true, are they? And completely unprovable and untestable by science.

In the matters of the heart, science is dumb.

I think this is a better way to discuss the issue. Then again, I like the classics so:

YouTube link

Here's another good one:

YouTube link

"If non-science can investigate and find the truth, please give an example."

The Golden Rule is a good example.

Good show, Parzival.

The good Whitsitgoo4atwork, appears to exhibit at least a hint of 'scientism.'

P.S. Spot on OFM.

I can't be bothered batting own all your straw man arguments, at least at the moment, but here are a few of your more blatant assumptions and misrepresentations of my position.

I have never said truth is superior to falsehoods in any moral sense. I have merely spoken about how we can know what is or is not true. You may ascribe moral aspects to that, but I have not.

I will settle for the truth, as well as we can know it. I have given it no moral aspect despite your assertions that I have.

Your little rave about alternative Universes is entirely irrelevant in that no reputable scientist is asserting this is a proven fact. These are still at, and may always be at, the ‘guess' stage. Science knows the difference between guesses and facts.

And yes, the examples you give are subjective, The Taj Mahal is beautiful. But not to everyone. 1 + 1 = 2 is true for everyone. Freedom is ‘better' than tyranny, but not the the tyrant. It all depends on a definition of ‘better'.

In fact, by ‘the Taj Mahal is beautiful', what you are really saying is ‘Most people find the Taj Mahal beautiful, which is easily verifiable (or falsifiable) by asking a great many people what they think of it. No metaphysics, faith, supernatural or non-science required.

As to why we find it beautiful, that is a valid question for science. It just doesn't understand exactly why humans find things beautiful or not as yet. Give it a few more years of neuroscience and we will probably better understand why humans find somethings beautiful and others not. So once again you have ventured into a (something) of the gaps argument. Just because science cannot provide an answer now does not mean there is no answer.

<"If non-science can investigate and find the truth, please give an example."

The Golden Rule is a good example.>

There are perfectly rational reasons why following ‘The Golden Rule' is (often) a good idea. Games theory and iterated prisoner's dilemma provides some interesting insights here, including when it is better to ‘betray' than to ‘cooperate.'

<The good Whitsitgoo4atwork, appears to exhibit at least a hint of 'scientism.'>

Seriously, name-calling without even a hint of an argument attached is not worth responding to.

I have never said truth is superior to falsehoods in any moral sense. I have merely spoken about how we can know what is or is not true. You may ascribe moral aspects to that, but I have not.

Yes, you have. Your entire attitude and argument is built upon the supposition that truth is superior to falsehood. If you did not believe this, you would not be engaging in the debate. Context is as much a part of communication as text. Your context is clear, whether explicitly stated or not.

Your little rave about alternative Universes is entirely irrelevant in that no reputable scientist is asserting this is a proven fact. These are still at, and may always be at, the ‘guess' stage. Science knows the difference between guesses and facts.

I am inclined to laugh at this one. You clearly have not read a great deal of the debates in cosmological circles. But I didn't say that anyone said these were "proven facts," though yes, many scientists believe wholeheartedly that claims such as these are "facts", despite all absence of either proof or even evidence. Hawking comes to mind, among others. And while Science (as an ideal) does indeed "know" the difference between guesses and facts, on a personal level this falls apart among scientists, which is what my example reveals.

Indeed, Science operates under one huge guess— that the physical laws that appear to apply in one infinitesimally minute portion of the Universe (that which we can actively observe) apply without restriction, alteration or exception throughout the entirety of the same. That belief is untestable and unprovable, though I think both of us would agree it is correct. Still, it is a supposition, not a provable fact.

And yes, the examples you give are subjective, The Taj Mahal is beautiful. But not to everyone. 1 + 1 = 2 is true for everyone. Freedom is ‘better' than tyranny, but not the the tyrant. It all depends on a definition of ‘better'.

In fact, by ‘the Taj Mahal is beautiful', what you are really saying is ‘Most people find the Taj Mahal beautiful, which is easily verifiable (or falsifiable) by asking a great many people what they think of it. No metaphysics, faith, supernatural or non-science required.

No, I am saying that the Taj Mahal is beautiful. The beliefs of others on the matter are irrelevant.

1 + 1 = 2 is true for everyone.

Prove this. Use science. While you're at it, prove the Pythagorean Theorem. I say that because such things (even the very foundation of mathematics) are inherently unprovable. They are either fact or they are not.

Freedom is ‘better' than tyranny, but not the[sic] the tyrant.

But the tyrant certainly considers his own freedom to be superior to the alternative, does he not?

But you indeed have fallen into my point— Science cannot answer the question as to whether or not these are truths, or which of them is true. Yet we operate under the assumption that such truth can be known and even pursued, though science can never prove that assumption.

Just because science cannot provide an answer now does not mean there is no answer.

And just because science can never provide an answer does not mean that there is no answer.

I can't be bothered batting own [sic] all your straw man arguments, at least at the moment.

I'll let that stand as exactly how it sounds.

Seriously, name-calling without even a hint of an argument attached is not worth responding to.

I am in complete agreement. Disparaging others serves no purpose in a philosophical debate. If the views of differing sides cannot be treated with respect, the debate isn't worth having.

<<I have never said truth is superior to falsehoods in any moral sense. I have merely spoken about how we can know what is or is not true. You may ascribe moral aspects to that, but I have not.>

Yes, you have. Your entire attitude and argument is built upon the supposition that truth is superior to falsehood. >>

No, my position is simply that a scientific approach is the only way to differentiate the two. While I certainly have a preference for truth for most purposes, that is independent of the point, which I will repeat. Again.

An objective fact-based approach is the only way we know of to reliably separate truth from speculation (or fiction).

An objective fact-based approach is the only way we know of to reliably separate truth from speculation (or fiction).

If after it is separated, someone prefers the fiction, good on them – so long as they do not try to force it on others.

I certainly accept that falsehoods can be useful. I tell lies as readily as anyone else.

As for tyrants, there are many rational reasons why people prefer freedom to tyranny, no mysticism required. Though actually, for reasons I feel are rational, I have chosen to live in a tyranny rather than a democracy.

<<Your little rave about alternative Universes is entirely irrelevant in that no reputable scientist is asserting this is a proven fact. These are still at, and may always be at, the ‘guess' stage. Science knows the difference between guesses and facts.

I am inclined to laugh at this one. You clearly have not read a great deal of the debates in cosmological circles…. …yes, many scientists believe wholeheartedly that claims such as these are "facts", …>>

I am inclined to laugh at this. First I read a lot of and am fascinated by cosmology. But mostly I will repeat, what scientist believe is irrelevant. What they can prove is all that matters. And once again you demonstrate your inability to separate the two – which is my whole point.

<No, I am saying that the Taj Mahal is beautiful. The beliefs of others on the matter are irrelevant.>

I agree entirely the Taj is beautiful, but there is nothing about that which is unscientific in any way.

<<1+1 = 2 is true for everyone.

Prove it.>>

I recall spending about three weeks in algebra 101 trying to follow the proof for ‘there is a number 1'. I did not follow it successfully and switched majors at that point. But just because I cannot prove that 1 + 1 = 2, doesn't mean someone can't and hasn't.

But I do thank you for so perfectly summing up the anti-science position. It ultimately comes down to challenging the idea that 1+1=2.

If you are asserting that 1+1 does not equal 2, and that it does not always equal 2, that 1+1=2 is just another article of faith, then you are essentially asserting there is no such thing as truth at all.>>

"Games theory and iterated prisoner's dilemma provides some interesting insights here, including when it is better to ‘betray' than to ‘cooperate.'"

So this falls into the gap then too, because it doesn't take into account human emotions like guilt and so forth. Either way science has not provided a path to truth here where non-scientific methods have and continue to do so.

You see all kinds of examples of this when dealing with people with catastrophic loses in their lives. It isn't that science doesn't have some methods of managing but few of solving such problems for most people.

Some problems are not soluble. Some are, but we don't know how to do sp. There is also nothing unscientific about compassion and empathy, or about helping people feel better about a situation.

We understand emotions very poorly, but that does not mean they are beyond understanding or do not have a rational basis in evolutionary or socail biology.

Just because there are physical bases for things doesn't mean that science is the best way to find the truth in them. Right now, it is usually a far second to non-scientific methods.

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. Can you give an example of a non-scientific method that has provided a path to truth?

And once again you demonstrate your inability to separate the two – which is my whole point.

Say what? I fail to see that I have demonstrated any such thing, or that this has been your whole point. *My* point is that their are things which science cannot prove to be true, which are nevertheless held by science as true. And that there are things which are true which cannot be proven or tested.

You also missed my point that the tyrant, at least, prefers freedom with regards to himself, even if not towards others. Stalin was the only free man in Russia, and he would never give that up. (Nor would have Mao in your chosen state.) That's the irony of tyranny; it exists so that one man can act as he wishes— e.g., have absolute freedom. That others get bamboozled into serving that situation for whatever reason— whether it be a false sense of security or economic or social betterment (however minute), or just plain greed or sadism, well, that's another situation.

In any case, I fully understand what the purpose of science is and what it can do. I also understand what it cannot do. My whole point has actually been that some understand neither— that would be the sort who troll the Internet attempting to start flame wars through posting links to things they have only the most rudimentary understanding of, if any. (I do not include you among that group.)

If you think that I do not value science or the Scientific Method, you misunderstand me completely. But yes, I do believe that truth can be derived at outside of science— indeed, your example of the math argument fits that bill. A proof of a mathematical theorem is an entirely different discipline from science. It involves pure logic, passing through step by step reasoning. So while yes, I agree that 1+1=2, and will allow the possibility that this could be proven via logic, I can confidently state that the tools of Science— namely observation and experimentation— have zero application towards that proof. It simply isn't testable, yet remains fact.

Well, this has been an enjoyable discussion, but I think we are beginning to run in circles. And we've probably satisfied the original purpose of the thread in amusing those denizens of the Internet who inhabit virtual bridges. I for one, shall cut off their feed. Not that I expect that such creatures would have any inkling of understanding of what either you or I were discussing.

Always a pleasure to engage in a little philosophy. See you around on TMP!

<My* point is that their are things which science cannot prove to be true, which are nevertheless held by science as true. And that there are things which are true which cannot be proven or tested.:

You have not demonstrated the former point, and I already agreed with the latter point with this post::

<There are indeed questions science cannot – or probably cannot – answer. See ‘When the clock struck zero – science's ultimate limits' by J.G. Taylor for a discussion on this.>

The discussion on tyrants, while interesting, in no way supports the contention that ‘there are things which science cannot prove to be true that are held by science to be true.' Ditto the discussions on beauty etc.

And I must disagree with you that 1+1=2 is not testable either. It is eminently testable and is tested in the real world every day. Mathematics is a language and the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 is just a particularly rigorous and precise description of the test.

It is probably obvious to all that one of the problems of this thread is we are using words like ‘truth' differently from each other. Mathematics does away with that wiggle room of interpretation.

See you around TMP as well. I agree this is a good place to finish..

I gave you one. Religion has given a path to truth. It is non-scientific.

Scott, with all due respect, I'm not sure your point is valid.

There was a time when we didn't understand the mechanisms behind thunder and lightning, and volcanism. It was explained by the activities of supernatural beings. We now know better.

Today we don't know enough Neuro-science to fully explain the nature of guilt, altruism or "do unto others…" in our behavior. Ascribing this to the activities of supernatural entities is akin to thinking Thor is still throwing lightning bolts. It is an example of "argumentum ad ignorantium".

Given that we are social animals it makes sense that altruism and treating others as you want to be treated are traits that we evolved. They are survival tools, no different than stereoscopic vision, bipedal ambulation, opposable thumbs, protective skin pigmentation, etc.

Indeed, Science operates under one huge guess— that the physical laws that appear to apply in one infinitesimally minute portion of the Universe (that which we can actively observe) apply without restriction, alteration or exception throughout the entirety of the same. That belief is untestable and unprovable, though I think both of us would agree it is correct. Still, it is a supposition, not a provable fact.

Parzival, allow me to disagree. In the last few years Hubble has found a galaxy 13.2 billion light years away. So the light from that galaxy took 13.2 billion years to reach us, across a Universe 13.7 billion years old. What we can observe is hardly an "infinitesimally minute" portion.

link

The physical laws of the Universe appear to be consistent throughout the Universe. It is not a matter of supposition, nor a "guess", it is a matter of observation.

And it is testable. For example, extra-solar planets and binary stars all follow the formulas set out by Newton hundreds of years ago. In fact, we can gauge the mass of extra-solar planets that we couldn't originally see, by the wobble in the sun. Everything seems to be acting according to our understanding.

Even things currently beyond our understanding, such as "dark energy" has been observed to produce it's effect uniformly throughout the Universe.

As for the uniformity of the laws of physics throughout the Universe being being provable, we would need falsifiability. We would need to observe a isolated part of the Universe that is not following the laws of nature. I'm not aware of any such observations.

1+1=2 has been proved. I'm given to understand it is a rather long, boring book. BUT it has been proved.

1000 years ago lightning was believed to be caused by a supernatural being(s). We now know the cause. So which one of these is right

1) It was ALWAYS the scientific reason- there was no supernatural being intervention

2) It was the supernatural up until the point the scientific explanation gained credence

3) It is still the supernatural- science is wrong.

In 1900 plate tectonics wasn't even known about. When first proposed, the scientific community ridiculed it, true. Yet now it is accepted as the truth.

Science changes, yes. It changes in response to facts. It goes looking for the facts. Individual scientists may cling to incorrect ideas, but science as a whole moves forward.

However, given we are trying to convince a segment of the population that can say this

Just because there are physical bases for things doesn't mean that science is the best way to find the truth in them. Right now, it is usually a far second to non-scientific methods.

any attempt to show them otherwise is pointless.

I refer you to lightning conductors and churches.

Regarding the universality of the physical laws: An old article which, unfortunately doesn't provide it's references

link

Same with dark matter. Observations indicate that dark matter has been constant throughout the life of the Universe.

link