Okay, sure, scientific principles like natural selection and general relativity are theories, but there comes a point when explanations or models become so instructive and so damned useful that they graduate to the level of axioms — a statement or proposition that’s so established, accepted, or self-evidently true that we can’t deny it, because to do otherwise would be simply unreasonable. That’s not to suggest we should abandon skepticism or seek to improve upon our axioms. But it’s important to recognize useful “theories” when we see them.
But what about the cases where neither you nor 99.999% of the world’s population has the ability to understand the empirical evidence that backs up a scientific statement? I’m sure you’re a smart person, but I seriously doubt you could read a paper presenting the empirical evidence supporting the big bang theory and actually understand it. Even if you could, not many other people could. Instead, they rely on dumbed-down explanations from scientists to enforce their belief that the universe was created in a manner consistent with the big bang theory. What if those scientists are just a bunch of nut jobs who made it all up? I’m not saying I believe that to be the case, but is it really entirely inconceivable? Even if they’re not nut jobs, aren’t you still really just taking their word for it?
Yeah, I’m not disagreeing with this part or the fact that science is useful.
I’m simply saying the blind obedience of the average person to pop-sci and their inability to discern between a law / axiom and a theory or flawed study based solely on their faith in science is not unlike religion.
String Theory says at least 10 dimensions, M Theory says 11, and bosonic string theory says 26.
Anyway, I haven’t read any posts beyond the first couple because I knew where this was headed, but your statement - taken without context - really kicks theoretical physics in the balls. Many theories, maybe even most, start as purely mathematical formulas. It’s not until years, sometimes centuries, later when we have the technology to employ experimental physics.
I don’t want to get involved in this debate…I don’t even know what’s being debated. But I love theoretical physics so I had to stand up for the nerdy science.
I agree with Black Swan you cannot verify a lot of science so you cannot trust most of it . There is limited proof that the world is round, other than stories from long ago, sailors and space astronauts. There are also many fewer dinosaur bones on earth than one would expect given their claimed historical large numbers. If the world is flat, that explains what happened to all of the Dino bones . It also makes an impending asteroid strike extra scary and means even a smaller asteroid could hurl half of humanity into oblivion.
What is reasoning? It’s the process of forming conclusions and judgments from fact or premises – but there are different ways to get there.
First there is deductive reasoning… coming to a conclusion that logically follows the factual premises and proposition. If the premises are deemed to be true, then the rationality of reasoning is considered sound and pure logic. What is absolutely true?
Next there is inductive reasoning… a form of reasoning that uses analogies, examples, observations and experiences to form conclusive propositions. They don’t try to establish their conclusions through absolute certainty, but through observable and predictive certainty. What is observably most true?
Then comes abductive reasoning… an argument to the best explanation that concludes what is plausible or most possibly true. It is choosing the most likely or best hypothesis or explanation based upon the most relevant evidence. What is most likely true?THIS IS WHAT I SUBSCRIBE TO.
Have previously made scientific claims been proven false? Absolutely. Does this disqualify the truth in all scientific claims ever made? I think not. I only have so much time on this Earth, and will accept the “truths” that have been given to me through science over religion any day of the week (and twice on Sunday) without wasting time by running the experiments myself. Yes I believe that many scientists have an agenda, but think a majority of what I’ve learned about life, thus far, is true – and can be backed up by empirical evidence. Yes these findings can be twisted, and can be subject to interpretation, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to question every “truth” that has been fed to me.
And just because some scientists claim that smoking is not directly harmful to a person’s health doesn’t discredit the majority of findings/theories/discoveries related to science. Just like a sect doesn’t necessarily reflect the beliefs/attitude/agenda of a religion. Keeping my eye on the bigger picture, instead.
^^And the fact that you think science (based upon empirical evidence) is akin to religion (based upon blind faith and miracles) is proof that you’re missing my point, too.
Doesn’t change my point. Also, not all theories are equal. Some fields *ahem string theory* have high failure rates and lots of dead end roads for research, primarily amounting to fun pursuits. So to my point, blanket statements about science rarely hold up.
. There is limited proof that the world is round, other than stories from long ago, sailors and space astronauts. There are also many fewer dinosaur bones on earth than one would expect given their claimed historical large numbers. If the world is flat, that explains what happened to all of the Dino bones 
. It also makes an impending asteroid strike extra scary and means even a smaller asteroid could hurl half of humanity into oblivion.
