What makes science better than the Bible?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » What makes science better than the Bible? » What makes science better than the Bible?

What makes science better than the Bible?

Page: 1 2 3 4

What makes science better than the Bible?

Taivaankorjaaja
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1

Posted 09/28/09 - 06:20 AM: Subject: What makes science better than the Bible?	#1
Why exactly is science (facts told by scientists) a better source of knowledge for the individual than for example the Bible? The answer can't be that scientific facts are empirically tested because it's empirical only for the person who does the experiment. For others it becomes knowledge that's based on the observer's authority, and you just have to trust he's not misleading you. Most of the scientific knowledge I have is of this type. I have never tried to confirm empirically (myself) whether the Earth is round or flat, I just take for granted what the books say. Now I'm not trying to denounce science, I'm just wondering what differentiates it from other authority-based systems.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/28/09 - 07:15 AM:	#2
I find that the miracles of science are more reliable.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 391

Posted 09/28/09 - 07:37 AM:	#3
It's inherent that the scientists don't need authority to tell about the facts of science because they should or most are surely aware that those facts are only the best we have now and that there's likely to be improvements in the future. It's also a part of the scientist-situation that if you can prove something better, you get the prize! In religion, you are supposed to believe what you are told by those in that religion. There's no question of one's being wrong in the assertions/doctrines/dogmas. Also Deism appears a lot more friendly in this regard. Cheers!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 09/28/09 - 09:08 AM:	#4
Sciences are merely specific ways of collecting and organizing data and, in fact, there is such a thing as "Bible Science". I assume then that you are asking about empirical evidence rather than science per se. If so, I have also never witnessed first hand anything from the Bible. I have never seen people turn into pillars of salt, the Red Sea part, or rivers turned into blood. However, I have witnessed many of the supposid results of empirical research such as the computer screen in front of me right now. Although many people make claims for the Bible being able to produce even greater results, such as miraculous cures, I have never witnessed any of these.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/28/09 - 09:45 AM:	#5
Of course, you have to have the knowledge prior to being a scientist. God merely is prior to being named. He admits that his knowledge comes before a mere name.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Timothy
Undead Mariachi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: 04°34'N 74°00'W

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 2078

Posted 09/28/09 - 01:43 PM:	#6
Taivaankorjaaja wrote: The answer can't be that scientific facts are empirically tested because it's empirical only for the person who does the experiment. For others it becomes knowledge that's based on the observer's authority, and you just have to trust he's not misleading you. Most of the scientific knowledge I have is of this type. I have never tried to confirm empirically (myself) whether the Earth is round or flat, I just take for granted what the books say. Scientifically valid results obtained via empirical experimentation has, as a condition, the possibility of recreating the experiment conducted. That is, the knowledge obtained from that particular experiment is not reserved for a particular subject, but is in principle accessible to anyone who does the experiment. The authority is not that of the particular scientist conducting the experiment, but is the authority of the experiment itself. Religion's authority lies on a designated group of people (say, the Catholic Church or whatever) that "know" stuff usually because of a divine revelation, something that you cannot reproduce on your own. This could be an important difference.
"Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic." P.F. Strawson

jsidelko
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2009

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 268

Posted 09/28/09 - 02:28 PM:	#7
Scientific statements, unlike religious ones, can be falsified.
thanatos

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 09/28/09 - 07:33 PM:	#8
Everyone's said really good things so far, and I can't disagree with any of it. But, there's one thing no one has said, that desperately needs to be said. Listen. Sit down. Clear your mind. Ok- Science is not an authority-based system. Did you know that if I perform an experiment and get certain results, I have to record exactly how I did it, and others have to repeat my experiment and get the same results, before any professional scientist will take my experiment seriously? Repeatability is a hallmark of the scientific method, and of good experimentation. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand science- science isn't some litany of facts given to people by a priesthood in labcoats. Science is a method: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 09/28/09 - 07:50 PM:	#9
Taivaankorjaaja wrote: Why exactly is science (facts told by scientists) a better source of knowledge for the individual than for example the Bible? The answer can't be that scientific facts are empirically tested because it's empirical only for the person who does the experiment. For others it becomes knowledge that's based on the observer's authority, and you just have to trust he's not misleading you. Most of the scientific knowledge I have is of this type. I have never tried to confirm empirically (myself) whether the Earth is round or flat, I just take for granted what the books say. Now I'm not trying to denounce science, I'm just wondering what differentiates it from other authority-based systems. The difference is that all the conditions of the scientific knowledge are explicitly stated and can be confirmed or analyzed or contradicted. If you can prove any statement false, then the scientific knowledge must change. Most claims in the Bible are subjective and non-specifically conditional, making it nearly impossible to confirm. If confirmed, however, the Bible can't be modified, so the claims are weakened by making them metaphorical or given literary license. You can confirm that the earth is round by taking a round-the-world flight, looking at the shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses, pictures from space, curvature of the earth from high altitude, etc. How can you confirm that the earth has "four corners" and that all the kingdoms of the world are visible from a specific high point? If it is allowed to be a metaphor, rather than to be taken literary, it is, by definition, not a reliable factual description.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Timothy
Undead Mariachi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: 04°34'N 74°00'W

Total Topics: 83
Total Posts: 2078

Posted 09/28/09 - 09:15 PM:	#10
Schiltz wrote: But, there's one thing no one has said, that desperately needs to be said. (...) Science is not an authority-based system. Did you know that if I perform an experiment and get certain results, I have to record exactly how I did it, and others have to repeat my experiment and get the same results, before any professional scientist will take my experiment seriously? Repeatability is a hallmark of the scientific method, and of good experimentation. Didn't I sort of said this? I said that there's authority but not in a particular person, but in the layout of the experiment. A well-designed experiment gives more weight to the results obtained, and thus renders some remarks as more plausible than those of a poorly-designed experiment.
"Neither Aristotelian nor Russellian rules give the exact logic of any expression of ordinary language; for ordinary language has no exact logic." P.F. Strawson

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.