An Idea

[Profpat]

Since no one offered a definition of science, let me post one from my internet research:

Science Definition



The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it. What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

[dleviwing]

Hi Profpat;
The key word here is “KNOWLEDGE” but some seem to think that “OPINION” is synonymous. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference when those opinions comes from our most educated people in the field of physics. The phrases “scientist believe” and “scientific opinion is” are often not stated or are often just ignored.

BTW: Isn’t a dimensionless point particle coming from a dimensionless point similar to the number of angles on the head of a pin?

[Profpat]

Hi Profpat;


BTW: Isn’t a dimensionless point particle coming from a dimensionless point similar to the number of angles on the head of a pin?

Yes according to my research an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In this context several of them like to respond to theological concepts by asking, "And when will the church resolve the issue of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" No reason to write Pope Benedict about that. For the benefit of humanity, I am going to settle this issue once and for all. Angels, like dreams, are immaterial things. They don't have a bodily existence. Consequently they do not take up actual space. Therefore an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin. Of course the atheist may laugh and say that angels don't exist. But equally obviously the atheist doesn't know that. His premise that they don't is just as faith-based as the believer's premise that they do. And given the premise that there are spiritual beings called angels, my conclusion follows inevitably. You see, my atheist friends, it's a simple matter of logic.


Best to you David,

Pat

P.S. Notice how the author states the an atheist belief in that angels don't exist is just as faith based in a believers faith that they do exist.

[Graybeard]

Yes according to my research an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin.

P.S. Notice how the author states the an atheist belief in that angels don't exist is just as faith based in a believers faith that they do exist.

Atheists don't believe that 'angels' don't exist, they say there is no evidence for their existence or their non-existence. There is no evidence for or against the statement that there is a bottle of Mouton Rothschild 1982 Claret orbiting the dog star. But I have faith there is ..... is this a likely supposition, do the laws of physics intimate such a supposition is likely?

Then why would anyone suppose angels. Science rightly says that in the absence of evidence why consider such extremely unlikely suppositions that lead to no change in the current paradigm ... even if they did exist.

cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Actually Greg I have no idea whether angels exist or not. However if you do believe, that requires an act of faith: Additionally, if you DON'T believe in angels that also requires an act of faith. This is what the author I believe was trying to say.

I DO believe in GOD and admit that requires an act of faith.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. If you are an atheist that also requires an act of faith, that God does not exist. Only an agnostic is open to both possibilities and therefore does NOT require faith.

[dipayankar]

How would you differentiate between knowledge and theory? They seem the same thing. I might have knowledge and/or could have a theory of a certain aspect..

Hi Profpat;
The key word here is “KNOWLEDGE” but some seem to think that “OPINION” is synonymous. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference when those opinions comes from our most educated people in the field of physics. The phrases “scientist believe” and “scientific opinion is” are often not stated or are often just ignored.

BTW: Isn’t a dimensionless point particle coming from a dimensionless point similar to the number of angles on the head of a pin?

[Profpat]

You do ask some wonderful questions Dipayankar;
Here is a definition for knowledge:

Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

Notice how they include THEORITICAL and practical understanding of a subject.

We'll have to wait for David's response to your question.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

SO what we have as knowledge is something that is proven. For theory we do not see any such proof. It is waiting to be proven. Lets see how the experiment with Higgs Boson goes, it is a theoritical particle which needs to be proven with our knowledge...

You do ask some wonderful questions Dipayankar;
Here is a definition for knowledge:

Knowledge is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.

Notice how they include THEORITICAL and practical understanding of a subject.

We'll have to wait for David's response to your question.

Best,

Pat

[dleviwing]

”Justified true belief” does not determine real truth so what you believe may or may not be true. Science is a discipline or philosophy that attempts to determine the difference between true knowledge and false knowledge. We can say we know Shakespeare but we cannot say his plays are true or false without evidence to support our belief.

The “Your TOE Theory” forum does not require one to present a scientific theory so anything goes here. If one decides to insist that a theory is true then one must present the evidence for review and judgments; otherwise we end up with endless debates and accomplish nothing but confusion.

[Profpat]

A theory may or not be true. If it is proven it is no longer a theory but a LAW of nature. Theories are always very helpful to help finding the truth, just remember they are theories and not a law.

You and I have a theory David as do many other members. I don't believe any of us have sufficient proof to establish our theories as an actual " TRUTH "

Best to all,

Pat