Evolution: The discussion and the theory...

[BruceLee_Reborn]

hey, i didn't write those. sorry, i'll be more specific next time. i must admit, though. i used to think atheists were brain dead idiots, but you seem to have disproven that. now i just consider you all to be mislead, intelligent beings.

 

Indeed. As it stands now, you are absolutely correct. One of group of people accepts this while another group has a completely fabricated answer that they feel is infallible. If you choose to believe in a doctrine that claims to have answers but provides none, then that's certainly your right. However, such a choice seems rather foolish.

 

The Bible does have answers, and i was refering to the fact that no one can go back in time, and watch the creation of the universe, whether by "big bang"(such a sophisticated and developed term:)) or God.

 

when did you chose to believe in atheism?

[Achilles]

hey, i didn't write those. sorry, i'll be more specific next time.

Actually, I was quoting the section that you wrote

 

i must admit, though. i used to think atheists were brain dead idiots, but you seem to have disproven that. now i just consider you all to be mislead, intelligent beings.

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

The Bible does have answers

Well, I think we should first establish the question first before presume that we have answers. The bible has a lot of stories about the world and the universe, but those stories conflict with what we can observe empirically. Some attempts are made at modernity, however they usually involve a lot of mental gymnastics and rational people tend to prefer simpler answers rather than complicated ones, so they reject religion.

 

and i was refering to the fact that no one can go back in time, and watch the creation of the universe, whether by "big bang"(such a sophisticated and developed term:)) or God.

No we can't. Not in the way that you're describing. Consider the speed of light. It is a measurable constant and as far as we can tell, is the fastest thing in the universe (nothing, not even gravity, travels faster than light).

 

When we look at the moon, we don't see it as it is now rather as it was 1 second ago. If the moon magically disappeared, we wouldn't notice until 1 second after it happened. This is because it take the light from the moon 1 second to travel down to earth and into our eyeballs.

 

Now, let's take a look at the other bright thing in our sky: the Sun. The sun is so far away that it takes the light 8 minutes to travel here. Same thing as before; if the sun were to magically disappear it would take 8 minutes for us to find out (btw, make those 8 minutes count because at 8:01 you can kiss your @$$ goodbye).

 

So we play this "what's the next brightest things we can see in our sky" game until we get to stuff that is thousands of light years away (a light year is a measure of distance signifying the amount of space light will traverse in a year). Using observatories and Hubble (but mostly Hubble) we can see billions of years into the past. The further out we look, the further into the past we can see because just as the light that leaves the sun takes 8 minutes to get here, light from far away places take years...billions and billions of years. So we see these things, not as they are now, but as they were billions of years ago.

 

With spectroscopy and Doppler Effect, we know that these bodies are moving away from us and those that are further away are moving faster than those that are closer to us. In other words, the universe is expanding. If you run the movie backwards, then eventually all the time, matter, and energy in the universe are condensed into a single point, called a singularity.

 

What caused this singularity is unknown. It very well may have been a god, but since we can't test for it and the physical laws of our universe rule out the need for one, it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily decide that this is the correct answer. It could have just likely been the collision of two branes as hypothesized by M-theory, the natural progression of a big crunch as hypothesized by the Big Crunch theory, or some other things that none of us will be able to comprehend for a thousand years.

 

Just as we could make predictions with the ToE, we can make predictions with BBT. Increase rate of expansion, background radiation, dark matter, etc are all predictions that came out of BBT. Predictions that were later found to be true.

 

So after all that: yes. Maybe god. But not very necessary, not even slightly likely, and impossible to prove.

 

PS: "Big Bang" was a label tacked on by a detractor. For whatever reason it stuck and that's what we call it today. It's a little bit of a misnomer though because there was no "bang" (it wasn't an explosion like you see in all those documentaries). It would be much more accurate to call it the "Big Expansion" or even the "Big Suck"

 

when did you chose to believe in atheism?

Right after I realized that almost all the religions that have ever existed are pretty much exactly the same and that christianity was the equivalent of a new version of AOL.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

well, wadaya know, it was me. oops. my bad.

 

as you well should:)

 

are you calling me irrational?? huh????? i will now go stick gum in my ears so i don't have to read this.

 

Right after I realized that almost all the religions that have ever existed are pretty much exactly the same and that christianity was the equivalent of a new version of AOL.

 

well, lets say God DID create the universe, but by, instead of going to each and every place in the universe, just created that "expansion" and made it expand, much as one would program a computer. and let's say that same God created all living things, and gave them the ability to adapt, and therefore survive(cause if we(every living thing) were incapable of adaptation, we would die pretty fast). it seems reasonable to me, and satisfies me pretty well, your thoughts?

 

then YOU get to be windows "security":)

[Achilles]

well, lets say God DID create the universe, but by, instead of going to each and every place in the universe, just created that "expansion" and made it expand, much as one would program a computer. and let's say that same God created all living things, and gave them the ability to adapt, and therefore survive(cause if we(every living thing) were incapable of adaptation, we would die pretty fast). it seems reasonable to me, and satisfies me pretty well, your thoughts?

That's one possible explanation, but it's way too unnecessarily complex.

 

Let's examine our three options:

 

supernaturalism (aka theism/deism)

 

Inefficient - Which system is more efficient: one that needs to be monitored or one that is self-correcting within the laws of the system? Sure, it's possible that a supernatural being could hypothetically create a perfect system that doesn't need to be monitored, but that creates a couple of problems. First, it eliminates the need for a gods continued presence ("my work here is done, guess I'll head home and catch Infinite Idol"). Second, this option is makes the existence of a god even more improbable (as I will point out shortly).

 

Highly improbable - Ok which of these two things are more likely: that the universe just happened all by itself or that a perfect, supernatural being capable of creating the universe just happened all by itself and then created the universe? At some point, you have to accept that "something" happened without a first cause. Why does it make more sense that that "something" is a perfect supernatural being? Not only would the existence of god be orders of magnitude more improbable than a self-creating universe, it's also an incredibly sloppy explanation. Hypothesizing that this being has sufficient complexity to create a perfect system just makes that being statistically more impossible.

 

Untestable - Because this option is supernatural, it is therefore untestable. It exists outside the realm of the universe therefore we could not possibly know its nature which makes it even more irrational that some of us pretend to. Accepting this option means that we will never, ever get to know the whole story, which would directly contradict the centuries of scientific progress that we have made which seem to indicate that we can.

 

naturalism (aka science)

 

Efficient - The first law of thermodynamics is extremely efficient considering that only a (relatively) small amount of energy is lost to heat when energy and matter are converted. Stars, planets, comets...everything is recycled. Little is wasted. If the system were perfect, then it might actually be an argument of a deity. That it is not tells us that it is a natural system.

 

Moderately improbable - Yep, no matter what we can't escape that fact that we are still dealing with a universe that just seems to have appeared out of nothing. We don't have an answer for this one yet, but considering that we've only had electricity for about 150 years (out of 4.5 billion), I'm willing to give it some more time. So, yes, it is still improbable but if it were impossible we wouldn't be here to talk about it, would we? It's also far more probable than the invisible skydaddy hypothesis.

 

Testable - We've been able to empirically test just about everything we've discovered in the universe thus far. We still bewildered by quantum mechanics, but again, we're still sucking our thumbs as a civilization so this shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

 

something else entirely (aka "wow, never saw that comin'")

 

Efficiency - ???

Probability - ...actually not half-bad now that I think about it.

Testable - I certainly hope so.

 

Is naturalism a "perfect" answer? No and it really doesn't need to be. It only needs to be a little more probable than impossible until we mature enough as a civilization to become better acquainted with the natural laws that govern our universe. Thus far we seem to be well ahead of that curve.

 

To presume to know something that you cannot and to accept as fact that which cannot be tested seems like intellectual dishonesty to me, therefore I subscribe to the option that embraces discovery and rejects dogma.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Jae Onasi]

All right, folks, general note to everyone here: keep it civil. I'm not feeling well enough at the moment to stay up late to edit out the rudeness and/or issue flame warnings--I'll evaluate that tomorrow, likely after I get home late from work so it'll be nearly 24 hours before I can get to the egregious parts.

 

However, do not add to the rudeness unless you really want to end up on the warned user list, and I'll lock it if this doesn't get under control now. Read the general forum rules and Kavar's Corner rules if you have not already done so.

 

This is supposed to be a 'friendly discussion' place that's safe from flaming. The moderators intend on keeping it that way.

[Achilles]

I certainly don't feel like Mr. Lee is flaming and I don't get the impression that he feels as though I'm flaming him. If our tone is too informal, then I'm sure we can just merge this is with the PM dialog that we've already established and save you some heartache

 

Either way, I'm sure you'll do what's right.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?

 

I actually find supernaturalism to be very much more believable than naturalism. Ever since the first time I heard about Evolution, which was before I became a Christian, I always though it was incredibly far-fetched. The universe simply creating itself by blind chance? I uphold the belief that God has existed forever - He had no beginning and will have no end, so it's not like He suddenly appeared and thought, "Hey, I'm bored, why don't I create a universe I can rule over."

[Achilles]

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?

uh huh...

 

I actually find supernaturalism to be very much more believable than naturalism. Ever since the first time I heard about Evolution, which was before I became a Christian, I always though it was incredibly far-fetched.

Fair enough. Which part specifically do you find hard to believe? Which part of the theory do you feel is not sufficiently supported by the evidence? If (and I do mean if) you're just forming your opinion based on...well...nothing, don't you think you should make some effort to understand it before you sign it off as preposterous?

 

The universe simply creating itself by blind chance? I uphold the belief that God has existed forever - He had no beginning and will have no end, so it's not like He suddenly appeared and thought, "Hey, I'm bored, why don't I create a universe I can rule over."

So the universe (which we can see) couldn't have possibly "just happened" but a perfect intelligence capable of creating the universe with its will (which we can't see) happening by chance makes sense to you? The idea that time did not exist before the big bang is too much (as it should be. It's a whopper to wrap your head around), but the idea that god has existed "forever" is perfectly within the realm of reason?

 

This seems very much like special pleading. "That can't possibly be true". "It's true within your belief". "Well that's different".

 

Can't have it both ways, my friend

 

Another thing to keep in mind: Even if we were to accept that the universe has supernatural causation, you have absolutely zero evidence to support the hypothesis that it's your god that did it. Pastafarians, ftw!!!

[BruceLee_Reborn]

All right, folks, general note to everyone here: keep it civil. I'm not feeling well enough at the moment to stay up late to edit out the rudeness and/or issue flame warnings--I'll evaluate that tomorrow, likely after I get home late from work so it'll be nearly 24 hours before I can get to the egregious parts.

 

However, do not add to the rudeness unless you really want to end up on the warned user list, and I'll lock it if this doesn't get under control now. Read the general forum rules and Kavar's Corner rules if you have not already done so.

 

This is supposed to be a 'friendly discussion' place that's safe from flaming. The moderators intend on keeping it that way.

 

He's right, we're just...animately discussing the differences in our points of view, though we will take it to pm. as to not frustrate your work of keeping the threads civilized.

[Jae Onasi]

He's right, we're just...animately discussing the differences in our points of view, though we will take it to pm. as to not frustrate your work of keeping the threads civilized.

 

You and Achilles obviously thought it was good-natured ribbing, but other readers (including me) didn't have that same reaction initially, especially when reading up from the bottom rather than from earlier to later posts. If you all make it clear when you're joking (especially if you're fake-harassing someone else), it'll help prevent misunderstandings. Thanks for clearing that up, too.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

i looked back at the posts, and you're right, it does look rather...agressive. i'll keep what you said in mind, thanks.

[Ray Jones]

They went from barely being able to create fire to building the wheel, socializing, then becoming pharoes and more advanced civilizations within 10,000 years or so.

Mankind uses fire for much longer than just 10000 years. Also socialising happened since before the existence of humans, simply because they and their ancestors tend to live in groups like since forever now. And if you take a look on what we've achieved within the last 100 or even 50 years, then that's the I don't know how much fold of what happened within the last 10000 years. I mean it took not even 10 years of manned "space travel" for us to go to the moon.

 

I don't think technological advance and social development contradict the theory of evolution.

[JediMaster12]

I don't think technological advance and social development contradict the theory of evolution.

It is part of cultural evolution since it implies learned behaviors which is a basic tenet for culture.

 

The way I see it, neither Evolution nor Creationism, in the context of the beginnings of life, will ever be scientifically proven, so I choose to believe the one that isn't so "scientifically based." My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?

Uh evolution has not been disproven. In fact the evidence, the physical evidence that we have uncovered has given the theory of evolution more support.

 

I have said it before and I'll say it again: Man I love being a turtle. Wait wrong line!

 

Anyway the goal of science is to disprove not prove a hypothesis. Evolution becam a theory because it has explanation power and really I haven't seen anything that would contradict the idea of natural selection and differential reproductive success. In fact what I have seen in my local museum about the evolution of horses goes to support it. That and the information about the Pleistocene and a whole bunch of other things have been grounded into my brain since day one of my time spent in anthropology.

[ET Warrior]

My question is, why trust in "proof" so heavily when the theory in question can never be proven?

I think one might find life a bit difficult if we are to live by that tenet, as it would force us not to trust in pretty much anything and everything.

 

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.

[SilentScope001]

I think one might find life a bit difficult if we are to live by that tenet, as it would force us not to trust in pretty much anything and everything.

 

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.

 

Well, because neither religion and science can be unprovable...or provable for that matter. Might as well trust in SOMETHING, by your standards. (And I am disappointed in telling people to rely on "tests", since they can be seen as basically being holy books, and some people may not like trusting tests, since there is no proof the tests are right)

[Prime]

Well, because neither religion and science can be unprovable...or provable for that matter. Might as well trust in SOMETHING, by your standards.

But science incorporates new information as it comes to light, whether it helps strengthen the theory or requires it to change. "Trust" isn't really the right word for what science is trying to accomplish since it attempts to disprove existing theories in order to improve them. Trust or faith is a religious concept in this case.

 

(And I am disappointed in telling people to rely on "tests", since they can be seen as basically being holy books, and some people may not like trusting tests, since there is no proof the tests are right)

For science, if it is determined that the tests are not right, then new tests are formulated.

 

As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical?

[SilentScope001]

But science incorporates new information as it comes to light, whether it helps strengthen the theory or requires it to change. "Trust" isn't really the right word for what science is trying to accomplish since it attempts to disprove existing theories in order to improve them. Trust or faith is a religious concept in this case.

 

But Science trust the framework is correct, and Science trust that the information it has gotten is correct. It trusts, for instance, that our senses can be relied on. This is all trust, this is all faith.

 

For science, if it is determined that the tests are not right, then new tests are formulated.

 

Science trusts that tests, in general, can prove certain stuff. There is no reason to assume this is all correct.

 

As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical?

 

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof? You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing. The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.

[Samuel Dravis]

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof? You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing. The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.

Proof science is correct is that it doesn't contradict our senses. That's all it needs anyway - that's the whole point. Science is descriptive. It's not "truth" per se - it is our representation of what we see as truth. There's plenty of reason to use it, plenty of reason to find it more worthy than other options. The very fact that of all the alternate "explanations" cannot, by their very nature, come up with useful new ideas and applications of the natural world like science does already puts it far in the lead of other (religious or otherwise) descriptions of the world.

[SilentScope001]

Proof science is correct is that it doesn't contradict our senses. That's all it needs anyway - that's the whole point. Science is descriptive. It's not "truth" per se - it is our representation of what we see as truth.

 

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.

 

I am not saying belief is wrong, far from it. If a person believes that the senses can give him what the truth is, then he should believe in the senses. But, if a person does not wish to believe in the senses, because there is no reason to believe, then why would you hold that against him?

 

There's plenty of reason to use it, plenty of reason to find it more worthy than other options. The very fact that of all the alternate "explanations" cannot, by their very nature, come up with useful new ideas and applications of the natural world like science does already puts it far in the lead of other (religious or otherwise) descriptions of the world.

 

1) "Want to heal yourself? Pray to God!"---Church Doctrine

2) "Everything must relate to 5 in some way, shape, or form! Just think, and you will be able to relate everything to the number 5!"---Rule of Five

3) "This Earthquake was caused by God, he wants to punish us for our sins!"---Pakistani preacher after an earthquake

4) "Aliens rule the media! Look at the media, you can determine what the media will say because that what aliens want you to believe!"--Conspiracy Theorist

5) "These stars indicate you will have a good life. Just wait, live your life, and you will have a good life. Oh, and want a palm reading before you go?"--Psychic

 

All of them are new ideas and applications of the natural world. To all these people, they seem to be "useful". Are they useful? I do not know. But all these things are NOT Science, that's for sure. I am not going to call them Science. But whatever framework generated this sort of nonsense/aboustley true truth, these things too can create these sort of random babble that could sastify what you say is correct.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Because how in the world can you prove anything at all, as long as you can question the proof?

Much of the evidence cannot be questioned in a logical, rational way. For example, we can't question that 2+2=4 intelligently in any way I can think of.

 

You can't at all. People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct.

There's plenty of proof to those of us who don't carry around this eternal fear that we may live in some unproven, undetectable Matrix. There are so many billions of corresponding observations of our world that there's no way we can honestly wonder if it's all just faulty senses. There's also no evidence at all for it being an illusion, and thus there's no reason to believe it.

 

If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing.

And this would gain us proof how?

 

The fact that we don't shows that no matter if we believe in religion or in science, we still believe, and the act of believing is, in itself, must be wrong.

Shades of grey. Believing in God without any evidence at all is vastly different from believing in gravity because we observe it every single milliseconds of our lives, from birth to death, and have massive amounts of evidence supporting it. You eventually reach a point where you know more than you believe. I don't believe that the Sun exists. I know it.

 

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.

Nonsense. We all, you included, trust your senses, or you'd be unable to carry out any action at all. You'd be unable to get up in the morning because you wouldn't trust your senses of sight and feeling to tell you where the bed, floor, etc. were. Not to mention that you'd be unable to feel your arms and legs and thus wouldn't be able to move them, or know how they moved. If your senses were null and void, you'd live in the Vacuum of Indescribable Boredom.

 

We all trust our senses. And no one has given any evidence whatsoever that we are currently in a state of mass psychosis. On the other hand, the idea that we all see the world as it is... is backed up by billions of observations every single millisecond.

 

Technically we may live in a computer simulation and be harvested for electricity by aliens. Technically I could in reality be a smelly iron-skin monster with sixteen eyes, seven heads, eighty armpits and twenty thumbs. But do I hear anyone say, 'nah, I can't trust people, we don't know they're not smelly iron monsters'? Of course not.

[ET Warrior]

there is no proof Science is correct.

The computer you're typing on begs to differ. The airplanes you may or may not have flown in, satellites that orbit the earth, and any other technological or medical marvel you can possibly think of implies the opposite.

 

The results of scientific study and progress have quite obviously yielded results. I feel fairly confident that no amount of praying would have created cellular telephones.

[Jae Onasi]

No, but some of us pray that they'd never been invented, especially after I have a patient sitting in the middle of an exam taking a phone call to discuss pizza toppings with her boyfriend.

[Achilles]

I also find it an odd conundrum that you would chastise scientific theories for being 'unprovable' and yet you choose to believe in things that can't even be TESTED. I find sometimes that I simply do not understand people.

As for those who do not like trusting tests, I don't understand the mentality of saying that theories are invalid because the tests could be wrong, and then turn right around and claim that religious teachings must be true without any tests at all at best or contradictory evidence at worst. Isn't that hypocritical?

Well put!

 

Sorry I missed all the great dialog last week. I finally got Oblivion working and lets just say I've been preoccupied. I'm leaving for Vegas in about an hour and won't be back until next Friday. I'm looking forward to catching up on all the goodies in Kavar's Corner when I get back.

 

Everyone have a great week.

[Prime]

But Science trust the framework is correct

But there isn't a trust element there in the first place. All the Scientific Method framework really says is "attempt to explain what you observe." What is the trust here? That we trust we are going to attempt to explain what we observe?

 

Science trust that the information it has gotten is correct. It trusts, for instance, that our senses can be relied on.

But that is exactly what it doesn't do. It doesn't trust that the information that was observed was correct. It doesn't trust that someone's senses are reliable. That is why it has to stand up to peer scrutiny. That is why results need to be reproducable. Now, if you are going to say that we trust that everyone's sense are accurate, then that is outside the realm of science and moving into the realm of philosophy.

 

Science trusts that tests, in general, can prove certain stuff.

Science doesn't attempt to prove anything. Mathamatics does. All science attempts to do is to construct a working model to explain current observations and predict future ones.

 

People trust Science, but there is no proof Science is correct. If we really are so interested in gaining proof, we should trust nothing, we should believe in nothing.

But that would apply equally to religion as well.

 

Why should we trust our senses? There is no reason to, at all.

The reason is that they have been shown to allow us to function in the world we percieve.

 

I am not saying belief is wrong, far from it. If a person believes that the senses can give him what the truth is, then he should believe in the senses. But, if a person does not wish to believe in the senses, because there is no reason to believe, then why would you hold that against him?

Because that in essense makes them hypocritical, IMO, since they say that they cannot trust or do not believe what their senses tell them, and then go right on to rely on them.

 

In any event, this is kind not really a relevant point, since if saying trusting incorrectly in our senses invalidates science (which it doesn't anyway), it equally invalidates religion and people's trust in that. The mere knowledge of religion was obtained through the senses in the first place.

 

1) "Want to heal yourself? Pray to God!"---Church Doctrine

2) "Everything must relate to 5 in some way, shape, or form! Just think, and you will be able to relate everything to the number 5!"---Rule of Five

3) "This Earthquake was caused by God, he wants to punish us for our sins!"---Pakistani preacher after an earthquake

4) "Aliens rule the media! Look at the media, you can determine what the media will say because that what aliens want you to believe!"--Conspiracy Theorist

5) "These stars indicate you will have a good life. Just wait, live your life, and you will have a good life. Oh, and want a palm reading before you go?"--Psychic

All of them are new ideas and applications of the natural world. To all these people, they seem to be "useful"...But whatever framework generated this sort of nonsense/aboustley true truth, these things too can create these sort of random babble that could sastify what you say is correct.

But these are great examples that show the point! Each of these are not based on observations, nor do they attempt to disprove the theories they have put forward. They do not attempt to explain all evidence, nor do they allow alterations to their theories when conflicting observations are presented. They do not seek to be peer reviewed and refuted. Their ideas are not useful precisely for that reason. They cannot be used to predict future observations.

 

The difference is that science takes what is observed and attempts to construct a theory. The above takes a theory and attempts to make the observations fit, and ignores those observations if they do not.

 

But IIRC the original point was that science can't be trusted because our senses/observations can't be trusted. But if that is true, then it could be argued that equally invalidates religion as well as science. So let's move on.

[JediMaster12]

All the Scientific Method framework really says is "attempt to explain what you observe."

Isn't that what it is?

 

Science doesn't attempt to prove anything. Mathamatics does. All science attempts to do is to construct a working model to explain current observations and predict future ones.

It thought Science was a means to disprove things? I know with math you can prove things which is why we have these things called proofs. I remember how much I hated writing them. I thought that by using the scientific method, it can disprove the hypothesis that was established through observatin. Under a categorization scheme it is considered a natural science like the others like chemistry and biology. So doesn't that make math a science?