View Single Post
Old 11-23-2012, 09:46 AM   #24
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blubber View Post
A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.
I don't know who you are, guy, but you get it...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote