Just thought you all should know that nothing has ever been scientifically proven. EVER. According to my TBM relative.

Mormons like your relative act like science is a religion, and it is in competition with Mormonism. That is a cult red flag. Well, Mormons already think they tell God what to do (heal the sick, do temple work for God's dead souls, judge the worthiness of others, make latter-day revelations that override the revelations of the prophets of old) so it follows that Mormons can tell scientists they are wrong. Oh, the arrogance.

Hi

I've been reading here for months, because I was intrigued after meeting some missionaries. Not that I'd ever consider joining the church, but more because I was curious about what makes young men like that travel around the world to spread such a message in a world like ours. I wanted to react to this post because of one of my pet peeves, having been a scientific researcher (I'm a teacher now).

Actually, that nothing has been proven is true. Science works by means of hypotheses. A hypothesis is valid until it is disproven or until another hypothesis emerges that more adequately fits the facts. For example, you might say that there are no black doves. Scientifically, this is a valid hypothesis, because it has the potential of being disproven (as soon as someone finds a black dove). Moreover,it is a likely hypothesis because almost all doves we ever see are white and/or grey. An example of a 'bad' scientific hypothesis is the god question, because neither hypothesis (god exists or god does not exist) can be disproven by hard facts.
So, in a discussion with someone who believes in creationist ideas, the right answer is not that evolution has been proven, but that all the evidence supports the evolutionary hypothesis and does not fit with the creationist hypothesis. Or: maybe evolution has not been 'proven', but creationism has definitely been disproven.

I am no scientist but I've always thought science has proven the earth is round, lightning is electricity, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, oranges have vitamin C, aspirin thins blood, etc.

Aren't things like that scientifically proven? I understand what you're saying about theoris and hypotheses, but I'm thinking science has proven many things that we just know as fact now.

Newton's Law of Gravitation can still be scientifically proven in 3 easy steps:

1. Pick him up.

2. Drop him.

3. Tell him the reason he fell and did not float is because his dumb ass was busy proving the Law of Gravitation.

I love this example!

Yeah tell him to prove the priesthood or newtons law by dropping him.

It amazes me that this generational propagation of ignorance is able to sustain itself in a world where they are wrapped in the very evidence that science is what warmed their drink in the microwave, hauled their butts across country in a jet, kept the flu at bay via vaccinations for them and their children, and allowed them to more easily spread ignorance via the Bluetooth connection in the car as to bitch to another about the evils of science as they drive to a grocery store that was stocked using logistics driven computers for shipping.

Frigging amazing.

I really hope "E" the scientific researcher sees my question in my reply to his post. I really want to know your response. Hasn't science proven thousands of things like the ones I mentioned?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2012 11:41AM by Dee Lightsum.

No, science hasn't proven these things, no one has yet _disproved_ these things... However! The earth is not round, it is an oblate sphere, and not much of a sphere at that!

Hi

That the earth is round is something we can see now. Before we could actually see it, it was a hypothesis that fit other things people could observe, eg. the way stars move across the night sky. Science accepts things as fact as soon as you can directly observe them, and even then it allows for the remote possibility that one day we find out that what we thought we saw isn't what was actually going on.
That's why science moves forward: because science accepts that we do not have all the answers and that we actually might be wrong...
Unlike the fact that we can now see that the earth is round, we cannot 'see' evolution. Nonetheless, evolution makes the most sense given the evidence (fossils and so on) that we can see.
BTW, I'm a woman.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I believe in science and evolution. I don't believe in creation.

It's the whole Descartes vs the Matrix debate

Sure, nothing has ever been scientifically proven, because we CANNOT be sure that our powers of observation, or even our existence, are real.

BUT- that same debate invalidates God & Mormonism

So either you accept that we exist & can observe things, & therefore many scientific facts have been proven, OR that we may not exist & that Mormonism is BS.

QED

Is that what they're getting at? So it's basically semantics really. I'm using the term "scientifically proven" in a different way than them.

I wouldn't say it's what they "mean"
but if you have the argument for very long, that's what it turns into.

For example, take something simple like "I look through a microscope & see bacteria, therefore microorganisms exist. That was proven by science."

There response is either:
--I mean something more causal
--You don't know that, it could be some sort of light distortion that behaves consistently on the lense at focus of that magnitude
--Or, no- God just makes everyone see that, when in fact they aren't there... or aren't organisms and are just elements of nature animated by the will of God

If it is #2 or #3, they are basically bringing the debate to powers of observation.

If it is #1, then you have to switch to something like Inertia (another easy one). "We can see that objects in motion never simply stop of their own accord, but gradually lose energy through SOME force (be it friction, other object interaction... doesn't matter, you don't have to go that far)"

The answers I've heard to that are things like:
--Not that we've seen YET
--God just makes that happen, but he could change it if he wanted to
--That's what we observe, but maybe it's the rest of teh world that moves, or just your perception

Again, #2 & #3 are Matrix-ey.
#1 is just the np complete problem.

Basically in Computer Science a problem that is NP Complete means you can never be sure of 1 "best" answer. So if you write a program, you can subjectively think it's the "best answer you could come up with" but you never know if you would have found a better solution with more time, or if there is a subjective piece that someone else could improve (even something small like a better color physcologically, or a better font, etc...)

#1 can never be ruled out. But, you can at least be sure that the items are CORRELATED if not CAUSED by one another.

...so it isn't that Mormons are thinking of the Matrix when they say absolutist statements like that, but in order to prove their point- they have to go there.

(but by their own logic, they cannot prove their point... because they might not exist, or they might be using Matrix-supplied logic that is false).

Seems so, but the correct usage is very important here. So I found out!

I favor "I rest in the probability of a paradigm shift that will shed more light on this"

kinda means- As far as we know. Up to this point. As of yet. We could be wrong. Trying hard. As best we know ... ROFL!

let the flame begin!

Science versus MORmONISM -MORmON Joe Smith Loses !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1NYP60274

Science-Mormonism.....and never the twain shall meet.

Ron Burr

But Scientific Theory has proven the probabilty to a higher degree than it has been disproved. Ball is in the court of "prove it wrong, till then we got it"
The probability of a paradigm shift at some future point cannot be refuted.

heck what do I know :P

It seems like the scientific ideas of gravity, inertial, thermo dynamics, planetary motion, electronics.... all must be fairly well proven by science before we could send a man to the moon.

I don't see prayer alone sending men to the moon.

Well all those many who prayed aloud with strong forceful hot air .... could of helped

j/k

True that

Geology
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/564430_470590189628664_358977083_n.jpg

So it hasn't been scientifically proven that oranges have vitamin C because we're all waiting around until someone disproves it?

Whaaaa?!?

And I guess the earth isn't flat, round, or an oblate sphere, because that hasn't been scientifically proven either (since nothing can be proven).

I feel like I'm at the mad hatter's tea party.

Oh I get it now. LOL. Anonymous Science.

Some things are so reproducible that the probability of their being wrong that they obtain the status of "law", First Law of Thermodynamcis

For the layman and myself as a scientist, I acknowledge that all there is a probability that the earth is not round/spheroid, but I also am aware that the prbability that the earth is not round/spheroid is so small that the chances of it being disproven in my lifetime are close to zero. Hence in my own mind I accept as a "fact" that the earth is round/spheroid.

It is semantics but it is important in respect to understanding why it takes a while for a new "fact" to settle into acceptance - people are busy trying to find an alternative explanation to man driven global warming, eventually an idea will be solid enough that it can be treated as a fact or "proven".

The main point is that science explains and predicts observations well based on trying to frame questions in ways where it can be tested. Religion does not even try to frame testable questions, hence faith.

seems to fit best:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward.

Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism
link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

or? I am still learning :P



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2012 04:09PM by mindlight.

If a science experiment is performed in the same way by scientists on the opposite sides of the world, the results will be the same for both. If priesthood power is tested by two Mormons it won't work for either of them.

I go with science. Repeatable results. The interpretations may differ, but in testable ways. Religion - Christian Baptists can't even agree on how much water is needed for a legitimate baptism.

Science works. Religion is wishful thinking. That's all I need to know, really.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.
Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama