Science

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(replace {WP-name} by more versatile {wikipedia}; other minor)
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{wikipedia}}
+
{{Wikipedia|color=#FDF7DE;}}
[[Science]] is a broad term describing a number of fields of study or knowledge. While it can be colloquially used to refer to a number of skills, its usage in this wiki generally refers to the system of discovery and invention based on empirical evidence and experimentation rooted in methodological naturalism.  The means by which science is executed is known as the [[scientific method]].
+
[[Science]] is a broad term describing a number of fields of study or [[knowledge]]. While it can be colloquially used to refer to a number of skills, its usage in this wiki generally refers to the system of discovery and invention based on [[empiricism|empirical evidence]] and [[experimentation]] rooted in [[methodological naturalism]].  The means by which science is executed is known as the [[scientific method]].
  
 
==Apologetics==
 
==Apologetics==
The primary anti-science claim of apologists is that science cannot provide sufficiently accurate knowledge about reality as it relies on naturalistic methodologies which exclude [[supernatural]] explanations.
+
The primary anti-science claim of [[apologist]]s is that science cannot provide sufficiently [[Accuracy and precision|accurate]] knowledge about reality as it relies on [[naturalistic]] methodologies which exclude [[supernatural]] explanations.
  
Another common anti-science claim is that since there are so many things that science doesn't have the answers for, it is incomplete and unworthy of belief.
+
Another common anti-science claim is that since there are so many things that science doesn't have the answers for, it is incomplete and thus unworthy of [[belief]].
 +
 
 +
Many people dismiss the findings of science because [[Science keeps changing|science "keeps changing"]], because that supposedly makes it unreliable.
  
 
==Responses==
 
==Responses==
Science has proven to be the only consistently reliable method of defining reality. Science, by definition, cannot consider supernatural explanations as they are, simply, unverifiable assertions. Supernatural explanations have yet to provide any reliable, verifiable information about reality and remain a matter of [[faith]].  If a supernatural claim ''does'' contain scientifically testable assertions then those assertions may be tested to see if they hold up in nature.  However, even if the tests verify the assertions, the supernatural claim itself will remain unverified until the remaining parts of it that previously had no way of being tested do.
+
Science has proven to be the only consistently [[reliable]] method of defining [[reality]]. Science, by definition, cannot consider supernatural explanations as they are simply unverifiable assertions. Supernatural explanations have yet to provide any reliable, [[verifiable]] information about reality, and hence remain a matter of [[faith]].  If a supernatural claim ''does'' contain scientifically [[testable]] assertions, then those assertions may be tested to see if they hold up in nature.  However, even if the tests verify the assertions, the supernatural claim itself will remain unverified until the remaining parts of it that previously had no way of being tested do.<!-- wording! -->
  
The fact that science doesn't currently have all the answers to every question about life, the universe, and everything certainly doesn't mean that science as a whole is unreliable.  Two centuries ago science had very little information (in many cases none at all) about things like quantum mechanics, dark matter, the age of the universe, etc.  However, nowadays we know much more than we used to simply because science is constantly progressing.  Indeed, the rate of scientific progression seems to increase the more we learn.  It's not illogical to expect that we ''will'' soon have answers for those questions that Creationists tout as holes in scientific knowledge.
+
The fact that science doesn't currently have all the answers to every question about [[life]], the [[universe]], and everything certainly doesn't mean that science as a whole is unreliable.  Two centuries ago science had very little information (and in many cases none at all) about things like [[wikipedia:quantum mechanics|quantum mechanics]], [[wikipedia:dark matter|dark matter]], the age of the universe, etc.  However, nowadays we know much more simply because science is constantly progressing.  Indeed, the rate of scientific progression seems to increase the more we learn.  It's not illogical to expect that we ''will'' soon have answers for those questions that [[Creationists]] (for example) tout as [[God of the gaps|holes in scientific knowledge]].
  
==External Links==
+
By contrast, religion does not appear to advance human knowledge in any consistent or reliable way.
 +
 
 +
==External links==
 
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science Dictionary.com entry on ''science'']
 
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science Dictionary.com entry on ''science'']
 +
 +
{{Science}}
  
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]

Revision as of 16:24, 31 October 2011

Wikipedia-logo-en.png
For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

Science is a broad term describing a number of fields of study or knowledge. While it can be colloquially used to refer to a number of skills, its usage in this wiki generally refers to the system of discovery and invention based on empirical evidence and experimentation rooted in methodological naturalism. The means by which science is executed is known as the scientific method.

Apologetics

The primary anti-science claim of apologists is that science cannot provide sufficiently accurate knowledge about reality as it relies on naturalistic methodologies which exclude supernatural explanations.

Another common anti-science claim is that since there are so many things that science doesn't have the answers for, it is incomplete and thus unworthy of belief.

Many people dismiss the findings of science because science "keeps changing", because that supposedly makes it unreliable.

Responses

Science has proven to be the only consistently reliable method of defining reality. Science, by definition, cannot consider supernatural explanations as they are simply unverifiable assertions. Supernatural explanations have yet to provide any reliable, verifiable information about reality, and hence remain a matter of faith. If a supernatural claim does contain scientifically testable assertions, then those assertions may be tested to see if they hold up in nature. However, even if the tests verify the assertions, the supernatural claim itself will remain unverified until the remaining parts of it that previously had no way of being tested do.

The fact that science doesn't currently have all the answers to every question about life, the universe, and everything certainly doesn't mean that science as a whole is unreliable. Two centuries ago science had very little information (and in many cases none at all) about things like quantum mechanics, dark matter, the age of the universe, etc. However, nowadays we know much more simply because science is constantly progressing. Indeed, the rate of scientific progression seems to increase the more we learn. It's not illogical to expect that we will soon have answers for those questions that Creationists (for example) tout as holes in scientific knowledge.

By contrast, religion does not appear to advance human knowledge in any consistent or reliable way.

External links

Dictionary.com entry on science


v · d Science
v · d General science
Scientific method   Scientific theory · Hypothesis · Evidence · Examining claims · Skepticism
Scientific Disciplines   Physics · Biology · Chemistry · Psychology · Medical Science · Mathematics
History of science   Heliocentrism · Quantum mechanics
Champions of reason   Carl Sagan · James Randi
v · d Biology
Evolution   Natural selection
Abiogenesis   The Urey-Miller experiment
Evolutionary straw men   Life just exploded from nothing · So you think we came from monkeys · How did the first dog find a mate · Crocoducks · Banana argument · 747 Junkyard argument · Irreducible complexity · Chuck Missler's jar of peanut butter · What good is half a wing?
Notable Biologists   Charles Darwin · Richard Dawkins · PZ Myers
Notable quacks   William Dembski · Michael Behe · Geoffrey Simmons · Ken Ham · Michael Cremo
v · d Physics
Concepts   Cosmology · Big bang · Relativity theory · Black holes · Quantum mechanics
Physics straw men   Fine-tuning argument · Anthropic principle
Notable Physicists   Isaac Newton · Albert Einstein · Richard Feynman · Stephen Hawking
Notable Quacks   Dinesh D'Souza · Ray Comfort
v · d Mathematics
Statistics   Sample size · Selection bias · Data mining · Standard divination · Statistical significance · Statistical probability · Meta probability · Gambler's fallacy
Mathematics and religion   Biblical value of pi
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox