Thread: Frozen water found on Mars

Did I deny that science is a good thing or that it is needed? Did I say that the scientific method has not gotten us anywhere? No. I agree that because of the scientific method, peer review, and some amazing scientists in our age we have made some awesome discoveries and advancements.

I just wanted to point out the fact that the scientific method cannot prove that something is true. It can provide lots of evidence and support (like you mentioned), but cannot provide absolute proof. I do not deny that it has been a strong factor in our civilization's development. I also wanted to point out that both science and religion are two separate ways of seeking truth.

I was not arguing against Bubba's point that "Science is always up for debate" and "science creates progress", and the fact that conformance and absolutism is dangerous for science.

Science can and does prove things true every time you type a key on your keyboard or read this board it is proof that science is right about the existence of electrons and how they behave.

It depends on how much rigour do you expect from a proof. So, it is effectively proven that electrons exist and behave as we currently know them to behave, but perhaps more evidence will come to light that they behave differently from what we currently know, and then we may decide that the concept of an electron is no longer accurate. From one perspective, this could mean that the proof was not a proof to begin with (i.e., the rigour demanded is that when something is proven, it must always be true), but from another perspective it was proven until more evidence came to light (i.e., the rigour demanded is for a proof to follow from all known evidence). The latter demand of rigour certainly is more reasonable. Admittedly, electrons are a rather poor example since it is unlikely that we would reject the concept outright, but ideally the scientific method demands that we be open to this possibility.

Science can and does prove things

You argued that science can prove things. I argued that the scientific method cannot. Those are two different arguments, so go back and rethink your argument and get it straight. One good way to do that is read the Wikipedia article that I linked to.

Of course science might be able to prove that something is true. The scientific method cannot, never has, and never will be able to.

It depends on how much rigour do you expect from a proof. So, it is effectively proven that electrons exist and behave as we currently know them to behave, but perhaps more evidence will come to light that they behave differently from what we currently know, and then we may decide that the concept of an electron is no longer accurate.

I echo that.

Religion however cannot prove anything, true or false. In fact the whole foundation of religion is faith, which is the belief in something in spite of a complete lack of facts, evidence, or reproduceable results.

Once again, you are misconstruing my argument. I never said religion can prove anything. I said religion is a search for truth, just like science. Rethink your argument.

Originally Posted by abachler

Religion isnt the search for truth in any way shape or form. Philosophy is the search for truth. A religion is a system of belief.

This is entirely dependent on where you position yourself. If from within a religious belief it is indeed the search for Truth and there's no denying it. If from outside, no. Definitely it has very little to do with Truth, in my opinion. Although one can still argue there's an intrinsic search for it on any religious belief.

Religion isnt the search for truth in any way shape or form. Philosophy is the search for truth. A religion is a system of belief.

I would consider both philosophy and religion methods of searching for truth, but they go about it different ways. Philosophy is based upon the human intellect and reason. Religion is based upon faith and revelation.

In an ideal situation (which of course this world is not an ideal situation), I hope anyone who conformed to a system of beliefs or anyone who simply believed in any principle would have done some amount of searching to see if that something was true. I believe what I do because I believe it to be the truth. Now, it is obvious that we are not in an ideal situation, not everyone is that way (many simply lead lives of tradition or indoctrination), and so I won't try to argue that. Nevertheless, by principle religion is a search for truth just like philosophy is too.

DavidP I do not feel I have to respond to you. You were not with me in my classes nor do you know who I am short of this board. However religion is not a search for truth since most religions already feel they have the truth. I was never taught that it is a search for truth and most of my profs would probably be aghast at the claim.

But let's stop the religion argument. My point was that a science that has deniers and believers is more akin to religion than science. I hope we can back away from this type of behavior and foster a scientific community that is not immune to nor afraid of debate.

As I read it, it notes the fact there's hasn't been a true effort, on behalf of the scientific community, to disprove or support some of the more outrageous claims being currently produced.

I would further this by saying that the more outrageous the claim the more concrete the evidence ought to be. Otherwise it's very suspicious. We obviously all realize that there is no consensus and the debate is far from over. Maybe people can look beyond the disaster channels and news outlets and begin to analyze the heart of the issue. Let's let science take the reigns and leave this absurd absolutism and manipulation behind. I'm a bit tired of the 'oh crap we are all gonna die and if you don't believe me you are an idiot' approach.

And back on track: I highly doubt we will be going to Mars anytime soon. NASA's new baby has already been rumored to be put on hold. Good news is it is more than just a shuttle that stays in low earth orbit.

BTW, next month will also be an interesting month. The Cassini-Huygens mission reaches its end after 4 years of intensive study of the Jupiter system.

Have been playing with Celestia a lot more now that I can finally load more detailed textures (here seen at 1440x900). And was tracking Cassini movements for next month when the mission ended. A quick lookup on the web revealed this to be correct.

The moon should have been colonized decades ago, but that's another argument.

What for?