what would that do to his crediblity?
2006-11-08 13:21:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
He didn't discover anything then. It's still a theory.
In contrast, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. God isn't a circus monkey to do tricks for you on a whim. Follow the scripture and wrap yourself in the Word of God and miracles and the works of God will unfold before your very eyes every day. You just have to open your eyes to see them.
2006-11-08 13:25:29 · answer #1 · answered by tjjone 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
To gain any acceptance, s/he would have to publish, giving her/his method of testing the theory. Science is only valuable if the results are repeatable. Therefore, zero credibility if the theory can't be tested. There is however no way to prevent others from trying to test a theory.
2006-11-08 13:40:39 · answer #2 · answered by Magic One 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean, it was humanely unethical? It could, but more questions would be asked about why he did the experiment in the first place. When scientists publish their experiments, they publish exactly how they did them. That way, others could replicate their experiments if they wanted to. So really, a scientist could only have his credibility hurt if he lied or did not publish a procedure.
2006-11-08 13:28:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are MANY scientific theories and hypothesis that have little or none 'actual testing' yet taken as fact and the world takes it as truth. Other's which have been tested or 'so-called proven' but later disproved.
Do we stop calling these people, scientists?
2006-11-08 13:33:47 · answer #4 · answered by freaky 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do people even think anymore? I don't think so. Scientists who say they're Christians and other oxymorons. I wouldn't find him credible, any more credible than the psychiatrist who asked about my "spirituality." If you believe in mysticism as opposed to reason then you sir are beneath me.
2006-11-08 13:25:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all it would totally discredit him as a scientist. How can you even be a scientist if you cannot test your hypotheses?! He'd definitely get a name for himself by saying he couldn't do the experiments to back up his hypothesis! It's called wacko.
2006-11-08 13:23:55 · answer #6 · answered by aali_and_harith 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's evident to me that since you've posted this question in the "Religion and Spritiuality" section of the site, you are trying to use the metaphor of scientific results to discredit the fact that there is no repeatable and verifiable means of testing one's belief in God.
Science doesn't require faith, only religion does. Religion doesn't require proof, only science does. Perhaps that's why I believe faith is more important than religion.
2006-11-08 13:34:50 · answer #7 · answered by i1patrick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is what is driving medical researchers with stem cells to other countries that let them advance science and demonstrate the proof of their ideas. It is why the US is losing its leadership in medical research.
2006-11-08 13:25:49 · answer #8 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he does not have that option. if he publishes anyone can try to recreate his results
2006-11-08 13:23:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋