Replies

There is simply no way science can be separated from faith. After all it’s on faith that also disbelieves in God. And at what point do we stop separating science from belief in God?

Science operates on the scientific method.

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Religion on the other hand demands Faith

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality (ergo a belief in a spiritual nature and in spiritual immortality), or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things.

Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used standardly in place of either as "trust," "belief," or "hope". For example, the word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust," faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes.

Science (good science that is, and not junk science) demands a rational and unbiased observation of a physical phenomena and a hypothesis based on that observation that can be demonstrated and tested in a controlled environment with the results well documented so that other scientists can objectively try to prove or disprove the hypothesis by replicating the results for themselves or failing to replicate the results. Bad hypothesis’s, arrived by flawed data or flawed methods are eventually thrown out were as a hypothesis that stands up to the rigors of the scientific method and sometimes fierce peer criticism and review by other scientists go from the status of hypothesis to theory.

Faith on the other hand demands a steadfast and unwavering belief in something that can neither be proven or disproved and attempts to disprove one’s faith often makes the believer even more steadfast in their belief.

Math isn’t so anal as science, come to think of it, neither is philosophy, english, history...

Like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang or a Heliocentric solar system, contrary to the protestations of some, Mathematics is silent on the bigger spiritual question of the existence or the non-existence of God. But I don’t see people demanding that alternative mathematics like an alternate Biblical based alternative to Pi be taught along side accepted mathematical principals. Why is that? One could argue that if the Bible is the source of all Truth and Knowledge and since the Bible doesn’t explain Pi, then Pi must not be true or must be questioned as to its validity?

As far as philosophy and history and literature that are more subjective in nature, I can see were a point of view either Christian or non-Christian could be applied to the interpretations but as far as English, spelling and grammar, like science, it is what it is and neither proves nor disproves God and shouldn’t try to.

What if they ask for directions to the restroom on the first day of science class? Is the professor obligated to explain, “that’s not science, so you’ll just have to hold it and see me after science class”? Seems overly marxist to me.

That’s just a very silly and unrealistic example. But if I were in that science class, even in an elementary school science class I think I could have made a sound argument that “holding it” would be both detrimental to me physically and mentally and my eventual inability to hold it could be a health hazard to my fellow students. I could offer this hypothesis and “demonstrate” it if need be. Oh and the science teacher would probably and deservedly be fired.

Finally so much of science is nothing more than opinion. A slew of doctors can express study after study explaining why theY approve of drug A as the best hyperstension medication, while an equal number and just as distinguished group of doctors swear by drug B.

Having worked for a pharmaceutical company I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that drug A or B comes down to just a matter of “opinion”.

When a researcher comes up with a new drug compound that shows potential as being useful to treat a certain disease or set of symptoms (a hypothesis) it undergoes many years of laboratory research; chemical, biochemical and animal testing, by various scientific disciplines, both in house and by outside independent laboratories (the scientific method) at the cost of many millions of dollars. In between, filings of these findings are submitted to the FDA before approval is granted to go on with the research and the next step of testing. And add to that the engineering disciplines who have to come up with the manufacturing of the drug and the quality assurance engineers who ensure that what is developed in the lab can be reliably replicated on a mass scale. On average it takes about 10 years of rigorous research and testing from idea to delivery before a new pharmaceutical is deemed safe and effective enough for human clinical trials and several more years of passing those trials before you can obtain a prescription for it at your pharmacy counter. The vast majority of new drug compounds don’t make it even near to human clinical trials and for good reason. I have hypertension and I’m glad to know a whole lot of science went into the drug I’m taking rather than someone’s pure faith and belief it would be safe and effective.

Drug A and B might both treat hypertension effectively and safely but the reason my doctor may prescribe one over the other might have to do with my doctor’s experience and success with one drug over another, it’s cost and dosing options or other medical conditions and I might have that makes one drug’s lack of side effects more desirable or contraindications like Drug A might be more effective but might have a very, very slight risk of birth defects and so is contraindicated for women of child bearing years over Drug B that is slightly less effective but without that risk.

Then again my doctor might have a better rapport with the pharmaceutical rep for Drug A and may be more inclined to prescribe Drug A over Drug B but that has more to do with effective marketing and salesmanship, business and human nature than it does with science. But my doctor has proven that he is willing to change my medication if the first drug he prescribed has not been effective in lowering my blood pressure. He tries something, makes observations and if that doesn’t work, he investigates further and tries something else. That’s science. If my doctor prescribed me a drug based on his faith alone, his prayers, his reading of tea leaves or of my horoscope, I’d be looking for a new doctor.

Ummmm.... liberals ARE silly and unrealistic! That’s kind of the point of the whole insanity of trying to separate faith from the opinions of science, or pi or whatever you choose!

Political correctness simply KNOWS no bounds to unrealistic silliness!

As Rush Limbaugh often points out, being absurd to illustrate the absurd.

Las Cruces N.M.: godless liberals DEMAND the city change it’s name...(that equally silly and unrealistic separation of church and state thingy...) unlike L.A. where they demanded the cross be removed from the town’s logo, the VERY NAME of the town of Las Cruces (the crosses) is too offensive!

You can find all the doctors you want to but the FACT remains, human beings are fallible, yes including the so-called scientific method we use. There are too many variables within the scientific method that are imperfect. Just because it’s tested means there’s no concensus unless it’s something clear cut like the earth is round, (OOOPS...elliptical, slightly ovoid...etc. etc. etc.)

but if two medicines work similarly well for hypertension, or weather will change and why...well we will debate all those variables to the end of time with scientists exclaiming other scientists as using junk science ad infinatum.

Science is influences by politics, human nature, imperfections and yes faith, like it or not.

500 hundred years from now we will look back on things we just KNOW are science and call it junk science but TODAY people champion the scientific method used to come to such conclusions.

And exactly what IS junk science?

I’ve seen a scientist exclaim a peer uses junk science, but lo and behold...they have the same training, same background, same education, same pretty degrees hanging on their walls...

After all if your name is Leonardo DiCaprio you wholly support the hot air cult of global warming as legit science!

Once again science too often boils down to nothing more than opinion!

As far as working with a pharmaceutical company...I’m a nurse, so I see it for myself! In practice, and first hand! It is YOU who are wrong!

And there’s nothing wrong with opinion, but it too can no more be separated from science no more than faith!

After all science is something imperfect human beings practice!

VERY silly and unrealsitic human beings!

BTW...peers tell algoreacle’s crowd that global warming is a hoax, but hey the debate is over algore says!

Which is why it’s now climate change I guess! That or the canceleed speeches from record snowfall was just too embarassing for even him!

If you hear one day red wine is good for you and the next day it’s bad, keep in mind the “scientists” may or may not have stock in vineyards.