Can those outside of science credibly speak about science?

Well....we talk about the universe and big bang. What we fail to convey is that this theory only attempts to describe what we can detect. Not only might the theory be wrong but in no way should we assume it is the beginning of everything....provided there was a beginning. That is a human mistake.We do like things in boxes we are familiar with. In the end science means nothing. It is what we do with what we learn that will bring meaning to it for us. That is what matters in the end.

What does this mean?

There are two topics on Big Bang that are currently on-going -- if you want to discuss Big Bang in particular, those are where we should go.As it is, even this discussion is probably off-topic, but I will try to respond.A scientific theory is a theory only if it makes predictions that can be tested. If predictions are made (like in Big Bang), and we observe exactly what we are supposed to observe (like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), then the theory is considered verified. As long as the predicted phenomena are actually observed, why should we discard the theory? In fact, if the predicted phenomena are observed, why shouldn't that boost our confidence that the theory is essentially correct?On the other hand, it is when predicted phenomena are not observed, or when unexpected phenomena are observed, that we must examine the theory. Maybe the theory can be modified and "improved", maybe it must be discarded altogether.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Well robinrohan, you must answer that one for yourself.

My view is that once you have entered the limits of what is known there are no experts. There are those who's educated guesses or opinions will tend to have more insight and therefore either be more likely on target or simply trusted. To simply trust the opinion is a mistake.
I find by reading many posts on here that we are all biased based upon our personal perspective.

quote:

---

Well, germ theory was denied by most of the scientific community for some time, even after it was shown to have positive benefits.

---

Was science a formalized profession yet, and was the modern peer-review process in place at that time?

Mmmmmm, yes, though not as tight as it is now? I guess this depends on what you mean. The timeframe of this debate went up through the late 1800s to early 1900s. Here is an interesting Wiki entry on the competing theory at the time. Its always interesting for me to wonder what I would have thought at the time.One benefit and curse of the more modern era is improved speed and access to info. The lack of it may have played a part against germ theory at the time. The overabundance of info today might have the same effect (burying esoteric new info).

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

To show that logic is a natural faculty.

quote:

---

To show that logic is a natural faculty.

---

Have you tried the card logic puzzle yet?

But your example doesn't show that. It shows that certain logical conclusions can be implied merely by English grammar. You're going to have that problem with all your examples until you have an example of "inherent" logic that isn't dependant on language.Schraf's example is one such, and the fact that people only tend to succeed when they consciously apply the contrapositive rule (which they learned as part of a specific education in logic) rebuts your claim that there's any kind of generalized inherent power of logical human thought.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-03-2006 01:06 PM

What on earth are you guys talking about anyway? You complicate something that is simple. Of COURSE logic is natural to humanity. Of COURSE we all think logically. Maybe do a bad job of it frequently (The Fall, according to me of course), but there's no doubt that logic is built into us. Language doesn't just force itself on us, it grew out of human experience, and that's why it contains logical forms, not the other way around.

Faith, The strange paradox you find yourself in, is that it is creationists that have the flimsiest grasp of it. I am forever pointing out randmans fallacious logic, it seems. This statement underlines my point, above. You guys just don't know what logic is.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-03-2006 07:40 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

There is no sharp distinction between science and engineering although engineers typically have practical goals in mind while scientists investigate fundamental phenomena.

---

Scientist - WikipediaYes, I engineer stuff in my work, and I use the scientific method in my hobbies, which include flying planes, designing and building electric motors, and astronomy.
( to name a few)A Scientist, which I am not, is not the only person qualified to talk about "science".

Sorry Faith but logic is not natural to humanity, or else we wouldn't have to learn to use logic in school, or believe things that have no logical basis.
What we have is a framing that makes sense to us, but our thoughts about things are far from logical. Who said language comes from logic? it comes from need and to express, even language is not logical. it is only logical if it always means the same thing everytime. humans are not born logical they are born just like any other animal with needs that defy logic

I sort of agree with this, someone who knows about how science works, understands the structures and argues correct information should be able to be considered qualifed, but if the person in question has no clue about how science works or cares to learn should not be.