Science question, or ignoring that of?

[old.Tohtori]

Can you choose to ignore science and at what point does it become "needed" to agree with something?

Other way to ask; when does a theory become truth? Or does it?

This sprang from a discussion i had with a bud and i said that i think this hole "genes thing" has been used a bit too much as an excuse by people to explain lazy behavior etc.

Kinda like me saying "i argue on these forums because of my danaa! I can't help it!".

If that's a clear example.

Just curious on how much and to what point can you "ignore" scientific research?

EDIT: Oh and i'm not disputing science or trying to get reactions, if you were offended by this post, please don't feel so way. Also the example is simply an example, there is no opinion on the matter in this post.

 

[TdC]

I'd say that nothing we can come up with is a complete finite truth and therefor completely indisputable. Everything is disputable either now or at some point in the future. However I would argue that, like parallel lines converging in the infinite, there comes a time when further argument becomes pointless.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I agree with that completely, if i remember right, the science mantra went something like "everything can be disproven".

Maybe i should expand a bit on the question, just in case;

The example of the discussion continued by the person saying "it's been proven scientifically that genes effect these things, you can't just say you don't believe scientific evidence".

Now i felt that, yes, i can. Because, well, while some scientist prove that there are multiple dimensions, it doesn't(or does it?) mean that i have to believe in that theory.

Wondering if there's a personal opinion clause in scientific proof, or is there a point where "it is what it is".

 

[Genedril]

In addition to the 'everything can be disproved' don't a vast number of scientific theories have exceptions as well (the effects of gravity inside black holes etc). What we hold to be a self evident scientific truth now may well not be so in 50 years time.

Gene theory is a whole different ball game & comes down to nature vs. nurture. People with specific gene triggers may or may not actually have them come into effect (if I remember my A level biology correctly - it's possible that I don't as it's a long long time ago in a galaxy far away etc).

I agree with TdC's parallel line with the proviso that while they may currentlyconverge to a point where further argument becomes pointless, that's not to say that in the future further discoveries will not widen the gap again making discussion not just fruitful but necessary.

 

[tris-]

Stephen Hawking explains in "A brief history of time" that scientific proof is never an absolute thing. It is an idea which is agreed with more and more by people and formulas etc until it is commonly accepted. However, something like the formula F=m.a can be completley defunkt if someone can show that is incorrect. It is most likely accurate more than other ideas, because we know the formula works from your basic apple falling from a tree, to your basic planet orbiting the Sun.
Me saying that force is actually generated by invisible pixies is not as strong as F=m.a.
I cant prove in anyway that it is and I have nothing that agrees with my theory, so it is probably bull shit.

Have a look at Descartes scientific method, too. That will demonstrate more clearly what I am talking about.

 

[Bahumat]

I always thought a Theory was something that cannot be disproved? However like people are saying, if you can then prove it's false or fallable, what happens then?

 

[Genedril]

I always thought a Theory was something that cannot be disproved? However like people are saying, if you can then prove it's false or fallable, what happens then?

A theory is just a theory - it's not fact. Generally (as I understand it in the scientific domain) an accepted theory is something that has been attempted to be disproved by all available methods at that time - still doesn't make it an absolute though.

 

[tris-]

You make a theory, and then go about trying to disprove it.
The harder it gets to disprove, the more likely it is that its true. For example that F=m.a, thermodynamics, and gravity.

 

[TdC]

I agree with TdC's parallel line with the proviso that while they may currentlyconverge to a point where further argument becomes pointless, that's not to say that in the future further discoveries will not widen the gap again making discussion not just fruitful but necessary.

ta. I didn't mean that the lines converging as distance=time. When I said "everything is disputable now or in the future", your wiggly line mod is exactly what I was thinking of, so I approve As we learn more, and the models we use to define our reality improve we will probably find that certain things that were once true may become false and then true again, or vice versa.

Also, I'd put that if our metaphorical lines are in- or outside a boundary in relation to the distance to each other, attempting to prove or disprove whatever we're projecting them on becomes a pointless exercise.

 

[Bahumat]

You make a theory, and then go about trying to disprove it.
The harder it gets to disprove, the more likely it is that its true. For example that F=m.a, thermodynamics, and gravity.

Yeah that may be true, but what if the whole understanding of what the letters represent is wrong? Cause it could all too easily be;

Farts=My.Arse and no amount of thermaldynamic farting is going to cause the gravitational pull of your nose into my anus!



Yeah me too! :wub:

 

[tris-]

W
t
f

 

[Bahumat]

W
t
f

Hmm, I'm not an expert but I think those letters represent;

Wonder
Tris
Forever

!!!!!!!!!

 

[mooSe_]

Have a look at Descartes scientific method, too. That will demonstrate more clearly what I am talking about.

Descartes (meditations) is good up until the point where he suddenly throws in god because he gets stuck and then uses it to underpin everything else he says from then on.

 

[tris-]

So does Hawking in his book I mentioned above! Not directly a reference to a God, but to a creator or 'something' outside of our universe.

 

[mooSe_]

Yeah well that's not quite as bad because he leaves it vague, whereas Descartes goes on to describe it exactly as the christian god.

 

[TdC]

yeah, but Descartes didn't really have much choice if he wanted his works to exists.

 

[swords]

Pretty much what TdC said.
Science is able to adjust to new information and over a few generations of scientists new consensus is reached about a certain topic once many years research is done on a topic.

I have to quote Dara O'Briain on science since it's the best description i've ever heard:

"jesus, homeopaths get on my nerves with 'Well, science doesn't know everything'."
"Well, science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop..."
"Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill it in with whatever fairytale story most appeal to you."

 

[old.Tohtori]

Good points all around, still not quite the answer i was looking for.

I'll try to explain;

Let's say the DNA thing.

Can i choose to ignore it and say "i don't really "believe"(nothing religious) in that stuff"

If yes, why?

If no, when did it become something i can't "ignore"?

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

The only reason to know science is so that you get some of the jokes in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The only reason to know science is so that you get some of the jokes in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Or ALL the jokes in big bang theory

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

The only reason to know science is so that you can take the piss out of the creationists.

Fixed

 

[tris-]

Good points all around, still not quite the answer i was looking for.

I'll try to explain;

Let's say the DNA thing.

Can i choose to ignore it and say "i don't really "believe"(nothing religious) in that stuff"

If yes, why?

If no, when did it become something i can't "ignore"?

Well you can surely ignore anything you choose to ignore?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well you can surely ignore anything you choose to ignore?

Ofcourse, but to a valid point regarding regular folk discussing?

Otherwise i could also say "bananas are blue in nature", but it wouldn't really be valid.

Just looking for a level of science, where science becomes accepted "fact"(at that point) and not theory.

 

[tris-]

That would be the way I explained that Hawking describes it in his book then

 

[old.Tohtori]

That would be the way I explained that Hawking describes it in his book then

Aye, in a scientific discussion etc. Explains it very well too.

But take a regular joe and a regular jane, talking about genes in a bar and the regular jane sayes "genes are the reason for bla 'cause there's scientific proof about it."

Regular joe states that "there isn't enough proof about it and it's widely used as an excuse for lazy people."

Now Regular jane says that "you can't ignore science!"

That's where i'm stumped

 

[tris-]

You could followup by can explaining to her what science is, maybe jane doesnt quite understand it.
She might be right though. Unless there is some proof against the theory, then it may well be the most likely one.

 

[Genedril]

Well like I said gene's are awkward - while they may control your appearance there's more to ones behaviour than genetic programming.

Whilst gene's may make your more predisposed to certain actions they are not the only thing that has a say in these matters. It's the whole nature/nurture debate & that can go on forever.

 

[TheBinarySurfer]

Aye, in a scientific discussion etc. Explains it very well too.

But take a regular joe and a regular jane, talking about genes in a bar and the regular jane sayes "genes are the reason for bla 'cause there's scientific proof about it."

Regular joe states that "there isn't enough proof about it and it's widely used as an excuse for lazy people."

Now Regular jane says that "you can't ignore science!"

That's where i'm stumped

Specific parts of science that have not been quantitvely and objectively proven can be ignored (quantam physics for example - a theory / in testing at best), other parts are indisputable by this point (gravity).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Specific parts of science that have not been quantitvely and objectively proven can be ignored (quantam physics for example - a theory / in testing at best), other parts are indisputable by this point (gravity).

Excellent answer when taken into account with the rest of above.

Thanks a lot to all, makes life a bit easier when getting into these discussions

 

[TdC]

Specific parts of science that have not been quantitvely and objectively proven can be ignored (quantam physics for example - a theory / in testing at best), other parts are indisputable by this point (gravity).

unless they're potentially interfering with your experiment.