Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)

5. Science is NOT "simply a collection of unalterable facts."

Reply to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 04:52 PM

Apr 2013

It's a collection of directly observable facts about the universe we live in. If we cannot be honest about why science actually is, how can we have an honest discussion?

An scientific conjecture based on the facts already known is not faith. It's hypothesis.

You aptly demonstrate how science allows for change as new facts and understanding come in. Does religion do that? What things that religion had claimed to know has changed with the addition of new facts about the world we live in?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scientific fact vrs. religious faith? [View all] Thats my opinion Apr 2013 OP

A scientist can generally tell you what facts would change their mind about a theory. trotsky Apr 2013 #1

except humility in a scientific dispute is honored as proper ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2013 #2

As long as you keep identifying religion with fundamentalism Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #4

I think that's why he says "fundie religions" EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2013 #13

Scientific Theories are models of reality... Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #3

You last major paragraph is on target. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #6

OK. Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #10

Science is NOT "simply a collection of unalterable facts." cleanhippie Apr 2013 #5

No really it is. They are all in The Big Book of Unalterable Science Facts. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #17

Few points... gcomeau Apr 2013 #7

Yours is a very helpful response. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #9

I would just point out... gcomeau Apr 2013 #11

Now why are you complaining? skepticscott Apr 2013 #14

You made it through the first paragraph ok skepticscott Apr 2013 #8

I had forgotten about that gem. trotsky Apr 2013 #12

The debate between relativity and QM is "raging" you say? dimbear Apr 2013 #15

I'm just reporting how an outstanding subatomic scientist sees it. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #18

Let me give you the best answer to another question your raise, one which may sound a little dimbear Apr 2013 #20

Ha Ha But scientists report that both are correct. nt. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #24

You really, really need to read this link that skepticscott provided: trotsky Apr 2013 #25

What are the bets? skepticscott Apr 2013 #29

No chance he reads it. trotsky Apr 2013 #30

If you're going to Ha Ha, Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #28

I suspect you misunderstood him. gcomeau Apr 2013 #23

OMG Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #31

Faith is commitment to a position with no evidence Lordquinton Apr 2013 #32

I think "faith" is the wrong word to use goldent Apr 2013 #16

Science seems clear Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #19

Which is why fundamental scientific theories skepticscott Apr 2013 #21

" Cosmologists were certain that Ptolemy was right. And then they were certain Copernicus was right. edhopper Apr 2013 #22

Well, I know of no raging debate between QM and relativity. longship Apr 2013 #26

Sorry, Charles...there is no "raging debate" skepticscott Apr 2013 #27

It looks like your friend, the physicist, knew what he was talking about. Jim__ Apr 2013 #33