Do you believe science?

Question

just because they come out with things doersnt mena that they have ever come up with the things they ment too,. so all the things a scienctist looks like, is all the things we have that we atribibute to science,., if a scienctist, cant be seen asa a scientist unless told or by what you notice on him or her, that you see out in public, if a scientist is supposed to where it or what ever, if you dont know all the reasons why, then an object he finds is because he doesnt know you trust scienctist to rule the wolrd, they know someone like me could do a better jobe,. so they expect people who, understand theings like how a person can use a caculator to have a better perspective on science, or do you truly feel that what we know, and what we expect, just becuase we cant be sure, is something that has to happen,., when really if we understanfd things that arein our world there are more than just those theyr are also the ones we carry around with us,.,if scinec leaves us like that then i can

Answer 1

I really tried to understand the focus of what you're asking, but I'm still not sure.

However, let me say that science is a naturalistic method of investigating the world and the universe around us. It depends on being able to physical observe or detect phenomena and allows us to form models and theories as to how these phenomena behave. Those ignorant of science, yet who vainly try to talk intelligently about it, seem to think that theories can be formed apart from experimental verification, but ultimately all science is based in experiment. This is also why many scientists don't regard string theory as theory at all, but hypothesis. I tend to agree with that view.

Science is a method that progresses by whittling away the hypotheses that end up being shown to be wrong (i.e., not predictive) and keeping the ones that are predictive. The ONLY way to test a hypothesis, as a matter of fact, is to use it to make a prediction which then can be tested. If it passes the test, the hypothesis is tentatively accepted and subjected to yet more testing. Note that a scientific theory can never be considered "truth", as some pseudoscientists might tell you (for example, see a response below), since "truth" is in the realm of religion and not science. Anyhow, if the hypothesis is not predictive, the hypothesis is falsified and either modified or discarded. This process is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method, yet still it escapes many the pseudoscientist (again, see a response below). Science is not a method that can provide absolute proof, therefore scientific theories and laws are always open to revision and correction.

So, to sum up, science is an extremely powerful method of learning about our universe, but it doesn't provide proof that our theories are 100% accurate.

Answer 2

I tried to make sense of your question and I have had no luck. So I'll just answer the only part of it that makes sense: "Do you believe in science?"

Yes I do believe in science. However, it must be noted that science is not some set of beliefs but a process of studying the world around us. The method is evidence-based, undogmatic and self-correcting. It is the only method that has been repeatedly shown to explain the world around us and if you truly understand the contributions it has made to the world then there is really no arguing with its effectiveness.

I must imagine you are not a native speaker of English. I once typed an email when I was really, really drunk and it came out looking like your question.

Answer 3

And "Full stop". Well, not really sure what your getting at but science is just a physical way to interpret our natural physical environment. It's not like scientists created the electron in an atom or a nuclei in a cell! Scientists use the information they discovered from their natural physical environment and manipulate it by creating new physical things, such as plastics from chemicals, cpu's/LCD's from quartz crystals, etc.

To me, psychics are more of a natural scientist, than an actual scientist is. At least psychics see the reason why things occur in their natural physical environment and would abide by God's (Divine consciousness) law to not manipulate things so much - whereas a very logically minded scientist feels they have free reign to create what they please just because they found the physical workings of their natural physical environment.

How I see it, because a lot of the ones I know are introverted, they externalise whatever is in their soul. A good example would be geneticists. The ones I know are very emotionally cold, introverted, morbid people, that are afraid of mortality and anything paranormal! Because they feel afraid of death, they feel they need to externalise this fear by trying to discover and develop gene sequences that will keep them from dying! One particular woman I know has a PhD in BioAssay, and for years she was trying to help find a cure for Leukemia - something which her father had for many years and ended up passing away last year. Her fear of her father's death had caused her to do a PhD in this! Do you understand what I'm getting at?

Answer 4

Do you believe in English, like using capital letters?

Answer 5

That is a really long sentence fragment.

Answer 6

Asking if one "believes" in science makes little sense. Science isn't like a religion, where belief and unbelief are both reasonable. If you do not believe that science is correct, then you are wrong, in the exact same way that you are wrong if you say the USA's capital city is Amsterdam. You can dispute individual scientific results, of course, but it makes no sense to say you don't believe that science should, in theory, arrive at the right answers.

Answer 7

technology isn't something that one "believes" in, as though we could desire to take scientific claims on faith. technology claims stay or die with the data. there is not any similarity with faith- maximum non secular claims can't be examined because of the fact they assert the supernatural, which by making use of definition, can't be studied with technology's techniques. inspite of the undeniable fact that, there are some particular non secular claims that individuals make that are vulnerable to rational and scientific analysis- and ninety 9% of the time, those non secular claims fail. to handle your particular factors regarding the meant faults of technology: technology does certainly make extraordinary claims at circumstances, yet that actuality that they look extraordinary would not cause them to no longer genuine- they stay or die by making use of the data. technology fairly would not contradict itself. faith has no help for many of its historic claims. saying technology has no actual data makes 0 sense. that's silly to have faith issues that have not got any data (maximum non secular claims). saying that faith makes a speciality of issues previous this international assumes there is something "previous this international"...that declare has unquestionably no data by any potential.

Answer 8

How can I understand what they're talking about??? I can't even understand their lingo!!! I'm hoping they'll learn to talk in a simple language so I can understand what they're saying. They might be right ..but how could I know??? It's kinda like if they answered in Spanish. I can get a word here and there...but can't put it all together into a sentence. LOL..They ARE right about your answer. Haven't you learned yet about capitalizing the first word of each sentence..and putting a period etc. at the end of each sentence? I know that computer lingo is kool...but not when you can't read it and understand it. I'm in a habit of using "......." too...but at least start some new sentences with capital letters. It will help a lot!! Thanks.

Answer 9

If you believe a thing is true and you act on that belief and get the results that you expect, then it was true. You cannot believe everything you read. My father once told me: "Don't believe anything you hear and only 1/2 of what you see."

Answer 10

I believe in science as both a body of knowledge and a method of inquiry. However, I do not believe all of interpretations of results (those can be biased) of scientific experiments. So individual results should be examined.

To correct some incomplete information posted on here earlier. Science does not wholly depend on physical observation and detection (though it helps). Many of the theories of superstring theory (and theoretical physics in general) have never been directly observed or detected as that our current level of technology doesn't allow testing these theories by experimental methods (yet). However, I still regard superstring theory, quantum mechanics, and theoretical physics as science.

Further, the predictive value of a theory does not determine it's truth but rather it's usefulness. Newton's formulation of Gravity was highly predictive (and immensely successful) so it remained unchallenged for many years. However, it in effect said that Gravity had instant effects (not subject to the speed of light rule). Then many years later Einstein came along and showed that Newton's formulation was incorrect and the effects of Gravity are indeed limited by the speed of light.
Thus a law of physics was overturned (or a least greatly refined).