Faith in Science

This thread is intended as a means to avoid totally derailing the "Deep South Republicans. . ." thread.

The initial post in that thread mentioned the high percentage of Republicans in Mississippi and Alabama who apparently don't believe evolution occurs or ever occurred. The post from which this discussion arises (in my opinion) is Andy's reply. In my response to that post, I took Andy to task for repeating the oft-heard canard "evolution is just a theory." IQless1 posted a response, quoted and answered below.

* * *​

I hope you have a better example than the one you use below to support your assertion that "some theories are widely accepted as fact when there is no meaningful supporting evidence." For one thing, despite the fact that you say you "understand the scientific method quite well," you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory entails. Perhaps you could use a refresher; I suggest you take a look at the same article I linked for Andy: "Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions: Learn the Language of Science". In that article you will find it clearly explained that,

Now, perhaps one might say that a scientist believes in his hypothesis without yet having accumulated meaningful evidence which supports it. I would not disagree. However, a scientific theory by definition has strong and repeatedly verified evidence which supports it. The only element of faith or belief involved in a scientific theory would be the faith that scientific evidence is a workable representation of reality, and the belief that results which have been repeated and verified by multiple scientists show that the theory has not been falsified.

Again, you seem to conflate "hypothesis" and "theory." Scientific theories by their nature have been thoroughly examined multiple times. They have been scrutinized and serious efforts have been made to falsify them; they have withstood the scrutiny and remain unfalsified. However, no scientific theory is ever considered "certain." All scientific theories can be falsified by new evidence, should it ever come to light, and the search for new evidence is an ongoing process. I'm not sure what you mean when you mention "less certain theories," but I am aware of fringe ideas which some mistakenly call "theory." One example is the "Expanding (or Growing) Earth Theory" which is supported fanatically by the comic book artist Neal Adams. "Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing"

This is simply not true. "Tired Light" has been thoroughly falsified by observational evidence. The same can not be said of Big Bang cosmology. Feel free to present "many more" cosmological hypotheses which are falsifiable and supported by observational evidence, yet have been thrown aside because the Big Bang theory was "more provable." I will take this opportunity to remind you that there is no such thing as "proof" in science. People who talk about "proven scientific theories" are either ignorant, or are speaking to a lay audience and are using loose and inaccurate terminology.

It sounds to me like you don't understand the observational evidence that has been mounting for years and which has to date shown that our universe is indeed expanding. That is really the essence of the Big Bang theory. The theory doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe itself, just as the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life on earth. If you read any book or article about cosmology by a reputable scientist or science writer you will discover that the Big Bang theory speaks only of events which occurred after what is known as the Planck era. The initial period of the existence of our universe remains admittedly unexplained by science, despite various hypotheses regarding that subject. This stands in stark contrast to religious assertions of knowledge regarding the origin of our universe.

One last time; "proof" as such, does not exist in science. It is a term which is properly used in mathematics and logic, but which does not have relevance in science. Your repeated use of this term in your writing leads me to believe that you actually don't know as much about the workings of science as you say you do.

You and Andy apparently could both do with reading some philosophy of science. I recommend you check out Karl Popper. A relatively accessible piece by him is "Science as Falsification".

 

You are ignoring an essential component of the way science works; peer review. When scientists present their observations, they are reviewed by other scientists, and the techniques used in producing the observations are used to attempt to repeat them. One scientist may believe something about the observations, but another may not accept that belief. The belief is not particularly important, but the observation is, and if and when it is repeated and confirmed multiple times by multiple scientists, the belief of any particular scientist has no bearing on the reality of the observation. This method produces results that in many cases have practical applications that work.

The Hubble telescope had nothing to do with the decision made by the IAU to include Pluto in the new "dwarf planet" classification. That re-classification came about partly because astronomers had discovered years earlier that Pluto was less massive than previously thought. In addition, other bodies such as Eris (which happens to be more massive than Pluto) were discovered by astronomers working at the Palomar Observatory. Eris and a couple of other newly discovered objects would have qualified as planets under the older classification system, and it was decided that it was necessary to refine the way in which orbital bodies are classified. That the nomenclature has been revised does not change the fact that Pluto exists. This example is spurious.

Another spurious (and mangled) example. The existence of Vulcan was never completely accepted by astronomers, because the reported sightings were disputed from the first. The fact that scientists make mistakes (which are corrected over time) is not evidence that science is based in part or in whole on faith and belief.

Older ideas being falsified by later observations is not evidence that science is based on belief. In what is beginning to appear to be a pattern, I see that again you've managed to mangle the facts. The observations which showed that our universe is expanding were made long before the Hubble telescope existed.

You've only shown that science advances and is continually being refined as new information comes to light. Science works in such a way that it corrects itself over time. This is not a failing, it's a strength, and has no relevance to your assertion that science is based on faith.

 

OMG, Popper! I'm working my way through The Open Society... right now.

 

I have been served.

You are correct, I am not a scientist and I write in less scientific terms. I also don't get paid to write my opinions, I don't have any need to convince others to give me money so I can conduct research, and I don't publish the results so my peers can verify my findings.

My opinion remains though that belief in the big bang is no different than the belief in a supreme being creating the universe. Both rely on leaps of faith that can't be reasoned with.

In one, all matter in the universe is supposed to have been condensed into a sphere (the size of which isn't really debated though it's been suggested by many that the sphere is quite small, smaller than our planet) and suddenly released. As you've mentioned, this sudden expansion is part of the theory of an expanding universe.

Any idea on how much energy it would take, how much force would be involved, to condense the universe into something the size of our planet? If everthing was condensed, what condensed it? What force held all the matter in the universe? Why was it suddenly released? Do you believe physics can explain how such a thing is even possible? I don't. Is there supporting evidence? Sure, just like there was supporting evidence that the fire element could be coaxed out of wood by setting it on fire. IMO, the theory of the big bang is just as unsound as the theory of the fire element.

In the other, God wanted a universe and so he made one. Maybe they could condense both into a "God Created the Big Bang" theory and then everyone can be happy.

So, for me, it comes down to belief. I can't prove that all energy waves decay after traveling 15 billion years in a vacuum, and scientists can't prove it doesn't, but it's a much more reasonable explanation than either the big bang or creation theories to me.

But again, I'm not earning a living conducting research on the matter. If my livelyhood depended on that cash-flow though, I wouldn't hesitate to work on the big bang theory too... that's where the money is.

 

Is the theory of the size of the known universe still in the 15 billion light years (ly) range? I expect that to change eventually... but why not conduct our own little experiment to see if that theory is true or not:

Get a piece of paper and a pencil or pen. Draw a dot in the center and label that "Earth". Draw another dot close to the left margin and label that "Farthest Image viewed from the Earth" or "FI" for short. Draw a line between the two and label that line "15 billion ly".

(Do you see my point yet?)

If you have a compass you could draw a circle by putting the center point at Earth and drawing through the "FI".

The diameter of the circle would be 30 billion ly and should represent the current limit of our ability to see into space. This should be provable by kickin' the telescope 180 degrees. If we can see 15 billion ly in one direction, it makes sense that we should be able to see an equal number of ly in the opposite direction, or in all directions, making the visible universe a 30 billion ly sphere.

In this sense, we are back to the days of believing the Earth is the center of the Universe again.

If you know of any research done in this area I'd like to see it. But please, no Big Bang theory sites, they irritate me.

 

Lucky thing I didn't post any links to pages explaining the Big Bang theory then, I guess. I happen to enjoy cosmology very much, and there are severe misconceptions in your last two posts, but if you find the subject irritating, I see no reason to trouble you by attempting to correct them. A very brief look at the size of the observable universe as currently understood (it's much bigger than you thought) can be found here.

 

I think a thread like this is long overdue and I'm enjoying it.

 

That's a much better explanation than the ones I've seen over the decades... but it's still Big Bang related lol

A few quotes from your link:

That's the first leap of faith.

The second.

The third.

One:

Yes, the theory of an expanding universe has empirical evidence to back it up. My point is that the evidence is being applied specifically to prove the theory, that other more reasonable explanations of why we might be perceiving galaxies in motion are overlooked since the Big Bang is the accepted theory... in other words the belief that the Big Bang is the only plausible theory is pervasive and is not conductive to any other interpretations of the empirical evidence.

As Andy said, it's a good theory for the time being, but that certainty that the theory is sound can be considered "faith". In that respect faith has a place in science.

Two:

I've heard of faster than the speed of light theories before, but most of the time I hear of how impossible it is. Again, this is a nice hypothesis or whatever scientists call it... I really don't care... but I know of no practical way this could be proven.

Since this is an aspect of the theory of an expanding universe, and this part of that theory is more speculation than anything else, it therefore requires a leap of faith, a belief that eventually it may become possible to prove but currently can't be. At least to my knowledge it can't be.

(Black holes are thought to be able to create worm holes that allow for faster than light travel. My hypothesis of black holes does not follow that train of thought. Another faster than light hypothesis is folds in space/time. Nope, I'm not a convert to that either.)

Three:

That is a much better conception than most I have come across over the years. While it is still enamored with the idea of the Big Bang, it at least accepts the idea that there are limits to what we can observe. What it implies though is that the known universe is all moving away from the Big Bang... that the visible universe is in the shape of a sphere with the Big Bang event just outside the visible edge.

I'm sorry, but to me that requires an immense leap of faith.

The evidence may indicate that the visible universe is expanding in all directions from a particular point just outside of the universe, but from my point of view that evidence is purely superficial. We are talking about time and distances beyond our ability to perceive from Earth.

The truth is we don't really know much about the universe, so we come up with hypothesis and eventually those become theories. We guess as to the nature of the universe and set about looking for ways to prove our theories... but sometimes we fail to look at other possibilities, other explanations for the evidence we've collected because we are too focused on one particular idea.

Not quite "faith", but in some ways it is.

 

I doubt it's going to last much longer Tak. No matter how the arguments play out, it still comes down to two differing beliefs... which is the point me and Andy are getting at anyway.

 

I'm sorry Recusant, I'm not trying to say I have all the answers, but what I do better than most people is question ideas that most accept as gospel without looking into the details themselves.

In these types of theories what I want to hear is that the evidence supports the theory but the theory itself is only an educated guess and not a proven fact. But 99 times out of a hundred what I hear is "believe us", without the mention that what you are being asked to believe is not actual fact. That irritates me.

As for the 15 billion ly point I made, that is close enough to what the site you linked had to say. The difference between the 15 and the 93 is explained on the site as our scientist's perception of the universe expanding... that they have calculated the distance to be 93 but it looks like 15. And yes, I'm still rounding it to 15 lol ...so I wouldn't call that a misconception, but it may be considered an omission of the calculations showing that the 15 is actually 93.

Any other misconceptions of mine would you care to point out? I'll do my best to explain my reasonings behind them, but as you can see, I'm not great at it lol

 

I hope you're wrong, but if not, you were all a breath of fresh air while it lasted.

 

The Earth is flat and floats through space on the back of 4 elephants who themselves stand on the back of a giant turtle I thought that everyone knew this!

 

Sadly, the lack of knowledge about such basics is staggering.

 

One thing I've learned over the years is that few people like the idea of their deeply held beliefs being challenged. I anger a lot of people lol

As for the turtle story... when I look at a map of the islands in the North of Canada, I see the front half of a turtle!

 

You are perceptive and learn quickly, Grasshopper.

 

I have no idea what you mean by that... ...but, I think I've been listening to too much FOX news. It's like I can almost see reverse evolution happening, but then all of a sudden I think God is tellin' me there's no such thing as evolution and that I should be worrying about how mexicans are takin' our jobs and how those people that are different than me must be commies or lib'ral no-goods an' such.

I've since changed the channel and am slowly learning to use my brain again... but it was touch and go for a while there... Is the grasshopper the one that stored food for the Winter? ...or was that the one that stabbed the turtle as they were crossing the river and they both drowned? ...I forget. OH! He's the one that lost the race with the turtle and... no... wait... damn you FOX!

..wait...was there a fox involved at all?

...I may need a few more days

 

If you wish to find the truth read the works of Mr T Pratchett, they will bring you enlightenment

 

I'm not going to have a lot of time to spend here for the next week or two, but will return at some point to try to answer at least some of your points.

Best wishes.

 

Ok... I'll wait then to explain how dark matter is like kitty litter.