Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

[magusphredde]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Yeah ... What Madness said ... 8)

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

[quote author=Dufonce link=topic=632.msg9271#msg9271 date=1288727645]
ya know a lot of what we "know" from science is THEORY, which means not proven but its our good guess. People have FAITH that they are true. though nobody can prove it. If its proven its a scientific fact. I from personal preference wouldn't call science a religion but it is definitely a belief. and never a fact as a whole.
[/quote]

The problem with this idea is that a theory is not a "good guess". A hypothesis[ is more along the lines of a "good guess". A theory is a helluva lot more than a good guess, its a tested and supported idea that can be used to make predictions. A theory doesn't need someone to have faith in it. A theory is either supported by data, or not. A theory is never "proven" because there is no "proof" in science...and a theory is not a "fact", in the sense of something that is absolutely true (though it can be accepted *as* a fact when used as data)---a "fact" is a discrete piece of observable data (the spoon weighs 42.3 g is a "fact&quot.

[Dufonce]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

touche thal, good explaination. i think i mostly related it to a faith equivalent because ive met people that argue with christians using theories as fact just like the christians say the bible is fact. and they see the bible as fact due to their faith even though its not able to be proven. i guess its more like they put faith in it instead of realizing its theory and still has some doubt in it. too much yahoo answers. so then where are we going with this vs thread...

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

[quote author=Dufonce link=topic=632.msg9458#msg9458 date=1288748225]
touche thal, good explaination. i think i mostly related it to a faith equivalent because ive met people that argue with christians using theories as fact just like the christians say the bible is fact. and they see the bible as fact due to their faith even though its not able to be proven. i guess its more like they put faith in it instead of realizing its theory and still has some doubt in it. too much yahoo answers. so then where are we going with this vs thread...
[/quote]

Actually, I think the problem comes from poor science education in schools.

A theory is accepted and used *as* a fact...which is why is can be used to make predictions. But because a theory describes a mechanism, or an overarching principle, etc, it is not a "fact" in and of itself. Its a semantics thing. It has nothing to do with faith.

I don't put faith in scientific theories and I don't believe in them--I don't need to. Evolution happens whether I believe in it or not...I can watch evolution take place (antibiotic resistance in bacteria), I benefit from evolution every day (domesticated animals and plants are products of human-induced evolution). If I fly in an airplane, I am reaping the benefits of all sorts of physics theories that I can't even name. I don't need to believe in them for them to still work.

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Let me let someone far more eloquent and better educated than I do the fact/theory thing...

And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

To give an example:

Assume that, as far as I know, the dog and I are the only animals in the house.

I fill a bowl with dog food.

A half hour later, I come back and the dog food is gone, but the bowl is still there. However, I did not see the dog eat the food.

Knowing that chairs, pillows, socks, and canned goods do not generally mess with dog food, and knowing that I did not eat the dog food myself, I can reasonably form a theory that the dog ate the food. Further support is given to this theory because, in the past, I have observed the dog eating food out of that bowl.

I can treat this theory as fact because it explains the missing food very neatly, and allows me to predict that, if I put another bowl of food down while the dog is present - having first removed the chairs, pillows and canned goods from the premises, that food will disappear as well. I can test this.

Without the absolute assurance that would have come from direct observation, I can still be extremely certain that my theory is correct.

However, if at some point in my investigation I discover that there is a weasel hiding under the bed, or that socks actually do like to eat dog food, I will be forced to revise my theory, no matter how much I hate to think about dog food eating socks and concealed weasels.

This is science.

On the other hand, if I decide that, because I did not directly observe the dog eating the dog food, it must have been eaten by a disembodies nonphysical being with extraordinary powers, it's sloppy thinking - not only is it extremely poor science, it's not even good religion.

This idea is not that hard to understand...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Sorry for the double post, but I had to come back and explain this -

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=632.msg9459#msg9459 date=1288748710]
Actually, I think the problem comes from poor science education in schools.[/quote]

While science education can always be improved - and it should be - this idea is taught in even half way decent schools. I can teach it, and I'm just the art guy. I can even, without working hard, come up with an infinite number of little experiments to drive the point home.

The reason it's so simple to teach is that it comes directly from "intuitive logic" - the logic which is part of our mental functioning, built in through evolution itself because using it confers a very high survival value. Even animals use intuitive logic - when "intelligence" is tested in animals, it's intuitive logic which is tested. ("formal logic" isn't entirely natural, although it's based on intuitive logic, and needs to be learned)

But I know something about kids you may not know. I work with hundreds of them each year, so that's not surprising .

Here's what I know: School is not the major educating force in their lives.

I can teach them all about what a theory is, how it works, and how it relates to evolution. I can test them on it to see if they understand it, and reteach it if they don't. That's not a problem - like I say, it's simple.

But when they walk out of school, it's gone.

The major forces in their lives are - in order of importance to the kid:

1. Their peers. Kids will believe whatever their peers believe, no matter how nonsensical it is.
2. People they admire. Those wires that lead out of everybody's pocket into their brain? They really are brainwashing kids. Add to that media people, and you got it.
3. Their parents. Kids still listen to their parents, when it doesn't interfere with the other two.
4. The people their parents admire. No matter what you teach them in school, if their parents tell them to ignore it and pay attention to something else, they will (often - as long as it doesn't interfer with the #1 and 2)
5. Teachers.

When their peers reject science, for whatever reason, they will too (church youth groups?). They will select music that tells them that science is destroying the world, and believe it. When their parents tell them that science is bad and/or that they need to believe in some kind of religious explanation given by the preacher, they will.

Anything I try to teach them will get brushed aside when factors 1 - 4 are against me.

Not for everybody - there are some kids who develop good reasoning skills despite bad environments - but for the average kid? Yes.

Do whatever you want in the schools, but, if it is only in the schools, it won't work for the majority of kids.

[Sirius]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

The difference between science and religion is, science is a search for the truth, and religion is a place for people to tell you how to live.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

The difference between science and religion is, science is a search for the truth, and religion is a place for people to tell you how to live.

Not always.l... sometimes people regard religion as a spiritual journey that has the truth as it's ultimate goal. Of course, my biggest problem with that is defining truth. Is it the truth? A truth? All or any truth?

And by the time I've finished thinking about that I'm usually chewing the carpet.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

The difference between science and religion is, science is a search for the truth, and religion is a place for people to tell you how to live.

Even if prefaced with the word "organized", I'd still disagree about religion being a manner with which people dictate others' lives. Saying so actually indicates more of a bias against religious affiliation and nearly crosses the line into reckless (and insulting) generalizations.

I'd also like to discuss how this "search for truth" explains what science is. As ambiguous as that phrase is, it could also be used to describe religion. The search for truth is open to interpretation for both the word "search" AND for the word "truth".

[spartacandream]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science is about getting to the bottom of how things operate here in the universe, religion is about peoples spiritual life/side. At least that's how I see it. Religion can, however, be about a quest for truth, and not just believing what you were told to believe, or just believing what you want. Especially when you run into the more philosophical religions.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Science itself is not a religion. Absolutely correct. Evolution is a theory, which has adapted to fit all the data we've given it. Little, if any data collected, can be said to fall outside the realm of what this theory explains. And since that is a pretty significant mass of data, we accept the theory of Evolution as one of those *technically* unprovable facts.

No. Where Atheists cross the line is where they start talking about "Denialism," a word coined by Michael Specter to describe a whole host of other groups, some of which simply want research. The word "Denialism" was invented by the speaker in this following video, to describe folks who deny whatever he believe is right - Evolution, vaccination, Genetically Modified Foods... and he's getting a following.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

I watched this video thinking that I'd see a Sociological exploration into denying Evolution. Instead, I'm greeted with a view of an Editor of the New Yorker going on about how he was right, and folks with questions about vaccines and autism were wrong. Not only that, he goes on to project that we will need genetically modified foods to survive, in spite of the lack of studies to verify their safety. I'm also tempted to think he views herbal medicine as a crock as well, regardless of how little study has actually gone into it. Meanwhile, he goes on to say that we need to demand more from the scientific community, in the way of studies.

Oh, and get this: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
Three varieties of Genetically Modified Corn cause varying health problems in mice - animals which are similar enough to humans that it *really* warrants study. Meanwhile, these same varieties are in our food supply in various ways - cattle feed, processed foods, corn syrup in particular... and the way corn is subsidized by the US government, corn ends up in almost everything in one manner or another.

I just want to say "who's in denial now?" This speaker shows an attitude where he practically worships Technological Innovation, without really understanding it. I'm tempted to say that this why (with a few notable exceptions like Hawking) your most... outspoken atheist public figures don't come from Scientific disciplines.

These individuals don't participate in scientific discourse - they spread Science's findings like gospel. String Theory is a favorite among some - but string theory isn't science - there's no data to back it up, and it failed the only test we've found for it so far. Meanwhile, Astrology's basic principles have more evidence than String Theory:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030698_astrology_scientific_basis.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/lhc-black-holes-string-theory/

(My apologies for the less-than scientifically rigorous articles).

These Fundamentalists spread a religion, and call it "Science". Afterall, religion is about beliefs, while Science is about the process of discovery.

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

The difference between science and religion:

[Sirius]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Religion and science both want you to believe something without all the facts. Religion has a harder time proving their beliefs, and science has a hard time getting you to believe what they prove.

[thalassa]

Re: Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?

Religion and science both want you to believe something without all the facts. Religion has a harder time proving their beliefs, and science has a hard time getting you to believe what they prove.

Neither science nor religion want you to believe anything. They are broad categories for types of societal institutions that lack the capacity for consciousness to engage in directed activities. Now, the individuals leading some of those institutions may or may have an agenda that they wish for one to believe in, or not...but that is largely irrelevent to the concept of "proof".

And by "proof", I mean an overwhelming body of data that supports an idea or concept...and by "body of data", I mean individual facts. The difference between the two is empirical.