How would you reply to this Christian comment about scientific theories?

Question

If you will, please explain in much detail. I would thank you so very much.

"Science's purpose is not to discover truth, but to establish which theories cannot be falsified in spite of the most sincere efforts. Science's purpose is to manufacture doubt.

Scientific research cannot prove a theory true, it is only able to prove a theory false. Philosopher David Hume summarized this by saying, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion." Scientific theories must remain perpetually open to falsification by new evidence.

In spite of how often one hears the term "scientific law," there is no such thing.
Because scientific theories cannot be proven true (see above), they cannot ever become laws.
The commonly heard expression "scientific law" is an informal way to add emphasis to an idea, but it is technically incorrect.
A "law" is by definition something permanent and immutable, but because scientific theories can always be disproven by new evidence, the idea of a "scientific law" has no basis in reality.
As just one example, Newton's "Law of Gravity" has been replaced by Einstein's "Law of Gravity" and, because of some theoretical problems, Einstein's "Law of Gravity" will eventually be replaced by a new "Law of Gravity" that is unknown at present.
In short, there are no scientific laws, only falsifiable theories.

Science only respects evidence, and rejects authority and expertise. On this topic Richard Feynman said, "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion". This is a particularly controversial point for those not familiar with science, because there are many cases where someone tries to exercise nonexistent scientific authority. The idea of "scientific authority" contradicts the most basic principles and spirit of science.

This is a surprisingly common, mistaken belief about science. Scientists take the opposite position — that an idea has no standing until evidence supports it.


Unfortunately, there are many pseudo scientists who claim knowledge of things they have no idea of and state as fact that which is not and therefore science and scientists have been marginalized. Much of what you see today is based on who the scientist is not evidence and replication."

Answer 1

I think this person has no idea what the terms 'theory' and 'law' mean in the sciences. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. A law is a descriptive account of how nature will behave under certain circumstances. The IDEA of a theory becoming a law is a scientifically illiterate notion. A theory can never become a law because a law only describes WHAT happens, not WHY, while a theory is REQUIRED to offer an explanation.



In practice, laws are often subcomponents of a theory.



Also, though relativity may have refined our understanding of gravity, Newton's laws remain usable under a broad range of circumstances.

Answer 2

I won't go into details, but I'll make one important point. Don't get sucked into the philosophical arguments in arguing for or against science. Most such philosophical are intuitive BUT science is not always intuitive. Look past that silly white swan and black swan argument. If a model/theory/law EXPLAINS how a ball or a feather or a boulder moves and PREDICTS how it WILL move under a given situation, then that's a correct theory.



Purpose of science is to explain nature and find the so called 'truth' behind different phenomenon. Whoever says 'truth' is a spiritual thingy is a brain-washed person. A theory in science is proposed with to explain certain phenomenon and it's tested by it's ability to predict other unknown phenomena. Once a theory does that and is tested by data (predictability is tested) the brief description (most often in terms of mathematics) is the accepted law.



Once there is an accepted theory does that, even if later data shows certain deviations from it's prediction, it is not falsified (most often), rather it is modified/extended to explain the new findings. Newton's gravity is not wrong, it's an approximation of Einstein's gravity. Classical mechanics is not wrong. It is simply the classical limit to the quantum mechanics.



The article is of course written with the intention of portraying science as a series of assumptions, which it is definitely not.

Answer 3

well going by paragraph



1) theories are so well observed that to suggest their disproof would be absurd, the theory of gravity for instance could change in terms of what causes gravity, but regardless of the cause, it's unlikely that we'd stop calling the end result "gravity".



2) this paragraph directly contradicts the first, either science can falsify theories or it cant. first the person you're quoting says science can't falsify theories, then the person says that science can only falsify theories.



now it is true that we can't absolutely prove something, but we can't absolutely disprove something either. is there no such thing as unicorns? (what of extraterrestrials?) is there such a thing as unicorns? (why haven't wee seen them?) what science CAN do though is provide a frame work for greater certainty. we may not know the exact origin of the human race, but through science like genetics we have a much better idea than merely guessing or retreating to mythology for an explanation.



3) Laws and Theories are two different things. sometimes sharing the same name, for example the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. you can mathematically calculate a gravitational field generated by an object, or calculate what kind of object would generate an observed field. that's a law. but understanding how that field is generated, that's the theory. think of a light switch, flip it and the light turns on, flip it the other way it turns off, that's the law, the theory is what causes the switch to turn on the light.



"Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome" -Stephen Jay Gould



4) Contrary to what the person says, the basic principle of science is that your authority is irrelevant to the data you present. Newton, for example, had an interest in Alchemy but his hobby didn't turn into science because the data didn't support such a change regardless of all the good he did for math or physics.



5) again there is a contradiction, first there exists an authority in science then there isn't.



6) i think the bigger problem is a lack of proper education and reporting on issues of science. studies are given news time, or are printed without actually vetting the results. controversies are treated as "he said, she said" journalism instead of a matter where one side has the facts and the other side doesn't. and the two channels that are supposed to be educating people about science; discovery and history channel, present shows on scientifically controversial subjects while only giving the shortest glimpses of skepticism.

Answer 4

This is pretty much OK except for "Because scientific theories cannot be proven true (see above), they cannot ever become laws." and "Much of what you see today is based on who the scientist is not evidence and replication."



Laws are mutable. It may have been the law that there was a 25% sales tax on tablecloths in some Australian states up to about 17 years ago. Now there is no sales tax. However there is a goods & services tax of 10%. Many more subtle changes come from court interpretations of black letter law, some of them being rather strange.



Two hundred years ago chemists formulated a law that elements combine in integral proportions. For instance, two atoms of phosphorus to five atoms of oxygen. And it still is a pretty good law, it holds for nearly all situations. But not all. And as already pointed out, Newton's laws of universal gravitation describe the motions of all our planets, except Mercury, very well.



All scientists know this sort of thing. Those claiming that these old laws always hold in whatever circumstances are immediately detectable as either ignorant or liars. A glorious example is the young Earth creationist nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics.



As for the second quoted sentence, it is twaddle. It is perfectly reasonable to accept the opinion of Richard Dawkins on biology just as it is perfectly reasonable to accept the opinion of a transmission specialist about the condition of an automatic gearbox. Many of these scientific opinions are not based on the ragged bleeding edge of research where facts are few and hypotheses abound, they are based on long and thoroughly established facts. Further, it might surprise the originator of these comments to compare what the popular media says about some piece of research and what the scientists actually said.



Having been on R & S quite a lot, I have very little confidence in any religious pronouncement about science.

Answer 5

I doubt I would "reply". Why bother? Sounds like a moron who has made up their mind. Someone who has just enough knowledge to throw around words like theory and falsified, but doesn't have the sense to see the forest for the trees. The type of person who will try to warp reality to make it fit their old superstitions. It sounds like they understand the definition of a scientific theory, but not the application. He likes to jump on gravity and mention how Newton's "law of gravity" was replaced by Einstein's. Yes, but that doesn't mean that there is no gravity. Those "laws" just deal with the nuts and bolts of it. Evolution is a prime example that creationists like to jump on. Oh well evolution is "only a theory". No it's not. Evolution is a proven fact. Yes, there is a theory of evolution. But again, it deals only with the nuts and bolts of evolution. How does it work, why does it happen, etc. It's not a "theory" that evolution does take place any more than it's a "theory" that gravity exists. No matter how much you beat it into their heads though they just can't seem to ever grasp that distinction.

Answer 6

this Christian comment about scientific theories



I know that are scientists who are also practicing Christians. And they find no contradictions in between their work and their faith. I admit that there might be other people, from other religions, that don't have such problems either. After all, science is not a replacement of religion; it's simply a way to find out how the world works without fooling ourselves in the process.



So it strikes me as strange that people would find problems with how the world works from their not liking what they find. The world doesn't care for what we think, it is as it is whether we choose to accept it or not.



If they disagree with a scientific theory then I say that, to be consistent with their beliefs, they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of the results from that theory. Of course, that would be detrimental for them, so let's keep quiet about it. If you voice your disagreement to others that inert objects released from an altitude should always fall to the ground every time, then don't be surprised if others call you an idiot. Science is not always about doubt.





"Science's purpose is not to discover truth, but to establish which theories cannot be falsified in spite of the most sincere efforts.



Agree.





Science's purpose is to manufacture doubt.



Completely disagree.



You know how to launch a satelllite into orbit, you can forecast weather, you can design a solar panel, you can design an airplane, you can find out how likely that someone is from your family from their genetics.



To say that you're doubtful of achieving such results consistently is to be utterly autistic about what science is and how it's done.



We know which things don't work. But we also know that things don't fall from the floor to the table because I've never observed that and you have a theory, a mental construct, behind it -- that objects in a gravitational field seek to lower their altitude.





Scientific research cannot prove a theory true, it is only able to prove a theory false.



Correct.





Because scientific theories cannot be proven true (see above), they cannot ever become laws.



Correct.





The commonly heard expression "scientific law" is an informal way to add emphasis to an idea, but it is technically incorrect.



Agree.





Einstein's "Law of Gravity"



No physics teacher talks about Einstein's law of gravity because there is none. There is, however, Einstein's theory of relativity, which describes gravitation as a contribution to space-time geometry. So whoever wrote that isn't well-versed in physics.





Science only respects evidence, and rejects authority and expertise.



Almost agree. I'd say instead something like:

"Science only respects evidence, and isn't submissive of authority or expertise." Which means it listens to authority and expertise, but admits that such expertise may not account for new knowledge.

Answer 7

I think the first part hit- a basic fact about science on the head.

Science can not hold a view when it has proven to be false.

In the case of the swans seeing white sawns does not prove all swans are white but one black one dose prove they are not all white. The next questions would by why and how are swans white and black.

When he starts talking about psudo science

I would state a good example would be young earth Creationism.

Answer 8

little bit of a generalization in the first line - i recognize some Christians who freely admit that they don't have any evidence and their idea is in accordance with faith. in addition they settle for medical evidence and that medical theories are the most acceptable causes that we've. So, you ought to were somewhat more advantageous centred on your idea. yet, compared to the 1000's of aggressive, generalizing or maybe vitriolic questions that get no scrutiny each day this does no longer warrant deletion. i imagine someone were given pissed once you talked about as them on their (non) answer

Answer 9

It is quite true. But the very last paragraph seems written to lead into "So, therefore, creationism is a valid interpretation of the facts".

Answer 10

How is that a "Christian comment"? I don't see it as critical at all. This is what science is, among other things. What science ISN'T is a system of dogma and behavioral strictures supported by fairy tales. In my view, science wins! DING! "A knock-out!"