TheDivingPreacher:
I had to tip my head back and roar after reading this one. Sorry but.....
So, the statement, "life forms seen today were formed by little green men with too much time on their hands" is scientific and therefore should be taught in the public schools. It can be disproven but has not been. Therefore we shouldaccept it. hahaha
Ok, how could it be disproven? How is this any different from "The Tooth Fairy did it"? Tell me an experiment where the result could disprove the statement.
Does it best fit the available evidence?
By the way: Who said anything about teaching in the public schools? I'm talking about the nature of science. What should be taught in school is the concepts that best fit the data.
For example. Newton had a description of gravity. His description worked for years - until new evidence showed small problems. The problems accumulated and Einstein developed a better description of the phenomena. That doea not mean Newton was wrong, it means his idea wasn't a complete description. Einstein's is more complete. That doesn't mean it's the final say on the matter, as we already know of some weaknesses in General Relativity such that it cannot incorporate Quantum Theory. This is one of the Big Unanswered Questions in physics. But whatever
does successfully merge the two had better be consistent with both GR and QT, since they both successfully describe their individual fields so well. Just like GR was consistent with Newton.
But they all fit the data better than the idea "The weight of the air pushes everything to the ground", so we don't teach that idea either. Also, that statement can be falsified, in that there is gravity in space, but not air, so air doesn't cause gravity.
TheDivingPreacher:
Maybe this one works better.
"Man was formed out of the dust of the ground and his wife was formed from one of his ribs." Now, it is capable of being disproven, but has never been. therefore, since the fossil evidence supports it and all available biochemical evidence and the like also supports it we should accept it.
Again, how would you disprove it? That statement is not capable of being disproven.
It also does not best fit the evidence. It does't account for the proto-humans, the dinosaurs, and the like.
If you want to accept every idea that can't possibly be disproven, again, you might as well add "The Tooth Fairy did it" to the mix. It's just as valid (and has just as much evidence) as your dust idea.
I really don't mean to get into a religious debate, but I'm talking about the nature of science. The one statement about God that can be falsified is easily disproven if He chooses to do it. I'm not saying whether God exists or not, only that science can't really address that question.
TheDivingPreacher:
Same logic, only doesn't fit your world view so we must throw it out right?
Not the same, and it doesn't fit the available data. My world view doesn't matter.
My point is simply about what is science and what is not. Science is not capable of proving anything - that's not it's purpose. Newton's gravity wasn't "proved", even when it fit all of the available data. Likewise, while experiments confirm relativity as being valid (to the point where it is not just research anymore, but engineering), that just means it describes the phenomena accurately, it doesn't mean it is the final word. Nothing is "proved".
Right now, there are divers in the 3rd world who think their post-diving sickness is caused by bad spirits, and they are in fact causing themselves serious harm with DCS. This was reported on in the Utne Reader last monh. Here's a little test: Is that (bad spirits cause the sickness) a statement capable of being disproven? Does it fit all the evidence about the bends? Is this whas we should be teaching them?
