@HardGravy you're right about not being able to disprove faith, and yes that is one of it's strengths, but faith is most certainly not a type of science. not even a simple or stupid one. faith is the opposite of science, because faith is the opposite of reason.
@SimplyAsunder Ridiculous? No, but quite true. In a strict sense, they are false. Modeling a bullet fired on earth and excluding friction from air is strictly false, but it provides the student the gist of the problem.
@ExtantFrodo2 that is the most ridiculous explination. per wiki - Idealization is the process by which scientific models assume facts about the phenomenon being modeled that are strictly false.
@JokerPokerUberSmoker back in that day the church and science were much more closely connected. christians used to believe that science was a way to understand god's creation, and therefore become closer to god (i know, fancy that huh). when darwin went to the Galapagos he did so on behalf of the church. Mendel was basically a monk when he did his pea pod experiments. but the honeymoon ended when scientists came up with results that were different from the bible. whoops!
@SimplyAsunder yeah, but the good thing about trying to corrupt a scientist is that there's always 10 scientists standing right behind him waiting to call him out. you have to keep in mind that fudging data or lying about experiment results is not only extremely easy to find out about (cause of peer review) but will most certainly ruin a scientists career. even if they manage to take the secret to their grave, someone else will eventually come along and put the pieces together.
Actually, the white church bus, religious TV, communion wafers are all because of science as well.
TheBrettBretterson 5 hours ago
@HardGravy you're right about not being able to disprove faith, and yes that is one of it's strengths, but faith is most certainly not a type of science. not even a simple or stupid one. faith is the opposite of science, because faith is the opposite of reason.
redrounin 11 hours ago
@SimplyAsunder Ridiculous? No, but quite true. In a strict sense, they are false. Modeling a bullet fired on earth and excluding friction from air is strictly false, but it provides the student the gist of the problem.
ExtantFrodo2 15 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo2 that is the most ridiculous explination. per wiki - Idealization is the process by which scientific models assume facts about the phenomenon being modeled that are strictly false.
SimplyAsunder 16 hours ago
@SimplyAsunder For the same reason they teach 'idealized models' when teaching physics and engineering. Students have to walk before they can run.
ExtantFrodo2 16 hours ago
@HardGravy Without evidence and measurements there is no science.
ExtantFrodo2 16 hours ago
@redrounin Very true, except you can't disprove faith because there's always a possibility, faith is a type of science, just the simple stupid one.
HardGravy 1 day ago
@HardGravy remember though nothing is proven, it's it only fails to be disproven. the true beauty of science imho.
redrounin 1 day ago
@JokerPokerUberSmoker back in that day the church and science were much more closely connected. christians used to believe that science was a way to understand god's creation, and therefore become closer to god (i know, fancy that huh). when darwin went to the Galapagos he did so on behalf of the church. Mendel was basically a monk when he did his pea pod experiments. but the honeymoon ended when scientists came up with results that were different from the bible. whoops!
redrounin 1 day ago
@SimplyAsunder yeah, but the good thing about trying to corrupt a scientist is that there's always 10 scientists standing right behind him waiting to call him out. you have to keep in mind that fudging data or lying about experiment results is not only extremely easy to find out about (cause of peer review) but will most certainly ruin a scientists career. even if they manage to take the secret to their grave, someone else will eventually come along and put the pieces together.
redrounin 1 day ago