Is it another aspect when science goes gibberish?
ben d wrote:
Indeed…..when people hear the term ‘big bang’, many do not understand that according to the theory, there was no cause or reason involved in the miraculous explosion that created existence from non-existence…they think that science understands, or will eventually understand how it happened….
Science does no miracles and science does not claim to have done any. The scientific progress is just a part of evolution of man. No credit deserves to be given to the philosophers, mathematicians and or to the scientists in this regard.
Does one agree to it?
The participants in this discussion:
If they belong to a revealed religion,
They should quote from the revealed scripture for their claim and reason and then elaborate their viewpoint.
Those who fall back on science for support, they should quote for their relative claims and reasons from:
A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
From a text book of science
Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.
and then elaborate their viewpoint. This is for ease of comparison.
Thread open for Theists and the Atheists alike.
amazingly, I sort of agree with this, but thats because I think of scientific knowledge as the work, achievement and property of all mankind. In very general economic terms, without the work of many people providing the kind of resources to feed and educate these scientists, etc, their discoveries would not be possible. more specifically, scientists drew on others work or relied on others to make their discoveries. it is sort of an illusion that a singe person ‘magically’ came up an idea and tends to reflect notions of intellectual property rather than the process of sharing ideas that is part of science.
e.g. the fact that darwin is credited with evolution ignores the contribution of other scientists and thinkers in this process such as Alfred Russell Wallace. Issac Newton is credited with major breakthroughts with developing Calculus, but there is a controversey over whether Gottfreid Leibniz got there first. Not sure about Einstein, but it was the Engish Physist Arthur Eddignton who actually demonstrated the validity of the general theory of relativity.
I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when ‘science talks gibberish’ it is because the reader doesn’t understand. The ‘science’ is right, it’s just the reader that is wrong.
Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.
When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.
In terms of language though, scientists aren’t half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can’t remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of ‘the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn’t know what they are talking about’.