@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.

Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Mechanical Engineering isn't science!


By that reasoning neither is a degree in mathematics.

Really it is a degree entirely based on and drenched in science. There is no guess work. If you need to find out something new you make a hypothesis, run some tests, get some results, validate the hypothesis, etc. all to the scientific method.

Are you trying to get me to self link? All right. I'll try to recreate this, but it will have to wait until I go to the grocery store again. We had pork chops last night, even, but they were the frozen variety.

I want fresh off the shelf pork chops for this. And I'll have to buy some Coke! Glorious excuse for it.

And why the fuck are you talking to me in third person? It's freaking me out.
>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.

You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)
If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.
Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.
UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>>
I stated earlier that I had seen that, and they couldn't recreate it. No little white dots appeared and rose up. I've done this on my own with chops.
So to say that's a proven false is ambiguous at best.
Edit: Everyone should try it on their own. Each of the times I did at Sunflower Market, it happened. This was with organic, free range pork chops. I really don't know if they're worms, but we called them worms then and it was definitely yucky looking and worth a laugh in the back rooms.


You have it all backwards Prozac. The video is proven false because many others failed to recreate the same result the video claimed under the same presented condition. There are numerous articles and videos pointing out that they could not duplicate the claimed results (http://youtu.be/B-oapHo-gdU). The fact that others cannot duplicate the same results makes the original video's claim inaccurate. It's Scientific Method 101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility)

If you are to argue that the duplicators have failed to carry the experiment properly, then you must provide evidence where the duplicated experiments have done wrong. It's a pretty darn simple experiment and it's rather hard to screw up. If there were other important preexisting conditions that had to be met prior to executing the experiment, then the original video should have stated these conditions. The video claims 'pour coke', 'over the pork' and '2 minutes'. People have followed the instructions, didn't see same result. Therefore the suggested hypothesis claimed by the video cannot be proven.

Also, Trichinella spiralis is quasi-microscopic. It is TINY and barely visible to the naked human eye. Try to Googling a photo of it and you'll only find microscopic images. Therefore, the so-called 'worms' visible in video cannot be Trichinella spiralis.

UsesProzac claims she's done the experiment and have seen 'something yucky'. Chances are that it wasn't Trichinella spiralis since they can't be seen by the naked eye. Perhaps she did see 'something yucky', but as to what that is, remains a mystery. No one has seen it but her, and it's her objective opinion claiming that it looked like a worm. I suggest UsesProzac upload a video of her experiment. Shot continuously without break in between, and in high quality so that the results are visible. Otherwise the existing evidence all over the net are stacked against you.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

Tyson is talking about arbitrary scales to make a correlation ... he is admitting there is no way to know exactly what is going on.... but it IS inside the 1-2%.

"Everything that we are, that is not the chimp, is not as smart compared to the chimp as we tell ourselves.

Maybe the difference between combining motions for sign language and building a space shuttle isnt as big as we think.

How do we decide? Imagine another life form, 1% different from us, in the direction we are different from the chimp. Think about that."

Now do you see? He is using a what if. You think his what-if is faulty based on what? He is using Occam's Razor and all of his scientific method, and the direction he is heading in is quite logical. Almost perfectly logical.

THE CORE ISSUE IS THIS

Sure ron paul is alright on some issues but thats purely by accident

he does not use science or reason to evaluate his poisotions as a result he is masively inconsistant and ilogical on lots of issues , this is the case with all the amercan goverment candidates for the running though granted i think paul is genuin and not running for cash or coperate intrest like some of the others.

WHAT USA NEEDS IS A PRESIDENT / PARTY THAT RUNS ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAKES DESICOINS BASED ON THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND ACTS TO PROTECT THE WEAKEST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY MORE THAN THE STRONGEST ,STRIVING TO MAKE AMERICA A UNITED STATE. A place where people can live safely with good heath and resalable laws.

As it is amercas policy and laws represent and are decided by weard amalgamation of strong interest groups , large corperarations , religouse groups and private clubs of rich people. That then portends to be democracy for the people.

They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic.


Every few months the alarmists claim we're at a "crisis point" where it will be "too late to turn back". I'm waiting for the next one since last June.

Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

Those that disagree are being suppressed and marginalized. Shouldn't that alone illustrate that people declaring "The debate is over" before there is any real debate have something to hide or gain?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

Which goes back to my point: who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature....and the "correct" dispersion, uses and price of oil? The free market does a better job of regulating waste and correcting mismanagement than any government.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

What are the worst cases the alarmists bring up? More storms? We can't do anything to stop or change the natural disasters we have now. What's that you say? A rise of one degree in the global temperature in the next 100 years? In 100 years people will be sprinkling Kool-Aid-sized packets of nanobots in the ocean and creating their own temporary islands.

Conversely, in 100 years, if there's no global warming and the threat was empty, we'll still be stuck with hundreds of thousands of environmental laws and regulations as insane as the U.S. Tax Code.

It may be paranoid to mistrust government power, but it is seldom a mistake.












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.


They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?
People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.
This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

>> ^shole:

Things do need to be simplified when doing a show of a limited time.
They can't do a show where it's like browsing wikipedia, jumping from one subject into some minute detail of it, and digging deeper until you forget what you were studying in the first place.
Not that i would mind if someone were to make a show like that.


exactly but the compromise is not saying verbs and words that have no real meaning. The compromise is saying , " this is what it is called " " these scientists have done x " "the ramifications are y"
and then include links at the end of a show or a short sting that tells people where to go if they are interested in perusing it or what books to read / maths to study.

The general public is ignorant as to what the basic principles of the scientific method are so trying to then explain the more abstract aspects of quantum mechanics is utterly futile.

Still the lecture was a realy good effort and most of it was fantastic , IT is depressing to me that your average joe on the street probably doesn't know of the slit experiment and that a good proportion of the adults in that room with him didn't .

This goes back to exactly what I said when the lecture was put on-line , and that is that some things can not be simplified and understood to any usfull level. Sure have some vaague descriptions and get people intrestead but then make sure you tell them that it simply cannot be understood unless you do some research into it and understand the principals behind it to a reasonable depth.



http://videosift.com/video/Professor-Brian-Cox-A-Night-with-the-Stars

"I actually think its probably futile trying to explain or teach Quantum physics to the general public other than saying it exists and this is how things are. It would be far more productive teaching the importance of science and the scientific method and the philosophy of science as that is something that can be grasped fully by sum-one of very limited knowlage of the subject matter and has the largest ramifications. "

>> ^quantumushroom:

It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.



They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

>> ^westy:

I would rather a kid get all these questions wrong but understand the basics of scientific methadoligy , you can learn facts and history over time as you get older but if you dont understand critical thinking and scentific method then you will litraly fill your brain with shit and evan worse not know the shit from the non shit.


I'd wager that most of those people don't know the scientific method either.

Thanks for the thought out reply. Before I get to specifics, let me throw out three thoughts:

1. First, let me define faith: complete trust in something, without personally verifiable proof.

2. I am in the same boat as you. I absolutely accept what has been taught to me in most science courses and books. But, aside from my own area of expertise, I take it for granted that past a certain point, I can't possibly reproduce the experiments and body of work in any particular field. So, my acceptance of, say, the results of organic chemistry is based on faith as defined above.

3. From my experience in the mill of American scientific academia and national laboratory culture, scientists DO NOT have an incentive to prove scientific 'canon' wrong. Especially in the politically strife world of academia, where tenure and grants are dependent not only upon good intellectual work, but upon soft skills and reputation. Too much in the fringe can sink you.

>> ^gwiz665:

@longde
I have seen the theories that have been through rigorous testing (aka the scientific method) and I can see the practical applications (power comes out of the reactor).
My logical basis stems from a mountain of scientific work in the field, where every single worker in the field has something to gain from disproving any given theory, but so far has been unable. Angels in the reactor is a rather hilarious hypothesis, but the onus of proving that hypothesis is on whoever makes it.
While the prevalent scientific theory has been verified by many independent scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
If you can bring any sort of evidence, data or observation that can be analysed to the table that an angel actually powers the nuclear reactor, then present it, or have whoever made that theory present it.
Let's take a different example, since the nuclear reactor is a bit out of reach for laymen.
MAGNETS, I don't know that details about magnetic fields, but I do know that they attract/push each other depending on something or other. I have read books on why they do this, these books have been through this rigorous testing known as the scientific method, because every scientist in the world has an incentive to disprove it. This is one of the factor that make me believe in the validity of that particular book.
Furthermore theories about magnets have predictive powers in that they show how you can make magnets, and how to make different powers of magnets.
For me, knowing the gritty details of magnets is not that important, but to a physicist it is very important. A layperson just sees the results of academia knowing the details in all practical applications of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Common_uses_of_magnets)
Gnosticism/agnosticism does not apply, as agnosticism implies that we cannot know and this is obviously not true, since we (the relevant scientists) do know quite a bit about it.
I'd rather use terms such as perinormal (that we do not know yet, but can be known) or blackboxing. A layperson, such as myself, blackbox a lot of things (I don't know how a CPU works down in the nitty gritty with electrons and what not), but I use it anyway - it's a black box that does shit. I click my keyboard, and letters appear on my screen - fucking magic. To me this is something I do not know all the details of, but obviously it works somehow.