Scientists who are religious

IFX

What's the jackanory with the Scientists who are religious?
I'm talking now in 2006, not historically dudes like Copernicus and LeMaitre (althought Le Maitre isn't that historical considering his work was all in the 20th century).

1. Are these people just liberal Theists?
William Reville could be classified as such perhaps. They still believe in a creator have a spiritual aspect to them. Fair enough.

2. Does anybody know any Scientist who is a fundi?
I can't think of any.

By Scientists I mean someone of at least national / international level, not just your Science teacher at school.

Your comments...

Dades

A scientist who is religious is just the same as a bus driver who is. I don't think there's a specific catagory for them, just because statistically they are rarer.

What do you mean by fundie? Creation "scientists"? Or creationists who happily excel in some other field of science and don't let their beliefs get in the way?

Zillah

You can have various combinations of belief/scepticism:

- A competant scientist who puts his own beliefs to the side.
- A bad scientist who allows his own beliefs to alter/warp his research.
- A fundamentalist who pretends to be a scientist.

(This is of course assuming the area of research has the capacity to interact with their beliefs...astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, geology etc.)

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

A scientist who is religious is just the same as a bus driver who is. I don't think there's a specific catagory for them, just because statistically they are rarer.

What do you mean by fundie? Creation "scientists"? Or creationists who happily excel in some other field of science and don't let their beliefs get in the way?

Fundi - a fundamentalist. Believes in pretty much everything the Bible says, including Adam and Eve.
The thing about Scientists over Bus Drivers is that Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally. It is seems a contradiction when they also have a belief of some sorts which involves no logic.

Dades

IFX wrote:

The thing about Scientists over Bus Drivers is that Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally. It is seems a contradiction when they also have a belief of some sorts which involves no logic.

Everyone is supposed to look at things critically and rationally - we just assume that scientists are more so than others. This idea is reflected in the statistics of non-theist people in the scientific community. So given this, what you seem to be asking is why do any (non creationist) scientists believe in a god?

I guess there will always be people in every profession* who believe. Their reasons probably differ as does every believers'.

- And what Zillah said.


* Until moderating here becomes a career.

bonkey

Scientists are supposed to look at things critically and rationally

When doing their job, yes.

I was talking to a maths lecturer recently who was telling me of a mate of his who's a lecturer in evolution in some Uni. starts every first-year semester with the caveat that he doesn't believe a word of what he's about to teach. He'd probably qualify as a "fundi" in your nomenclature.

Thing is the guy is a good evolutionist. He doesn't have to believe its true. He just has to seperate what he believes from the work he is doing. He does, and he does it well.

But here's the kicker: every scientist needs to do this, not just the "fundies" nor just the religious. All of them need to do it. Its no more acceptable to cut corners because you believe Darwin was right then it is to cut them because you believe he's wrong. Its not acceptable to dismiss a theory because you find its implications distasteful nor embrace it because "it all makes sense, man."

Either a scientist allows their beliefs to intrude on their work, or they don't. Seperating the religious from everyone else is arbitrary - they just have more readily-identifiable beliefs that are anathema to good science. However, as long as they can keep those beliefs seperate...there's no problem.

Einstein's original universal constant, IIRC, was brought about as a result of him refusing to accept certain implications of his theory and finding a "hack" around it. It had nothing to do with his religious persuasion, but the result was the same - he allowed his personal beliefs to colour his scientific thinking.

jc

Dave!

I believe Dawkins was asked about this in his recent interview with Jeremy Paxman, and he refused to say that religious scientists are "bad" scientists, but said that he just couldn't understand how they maintain religious beliefs.

It's a good question, and I'm kinda baffled by them as well. Perhaps their beliefs are born out of an emotional need rather than as a result of logical consideration. I mean, surely if someone had all the evidence to date on both sides, and they examined it, as scientists do, then they'd have to fall on the side of atheism.

If your average person thought about "where did all this come from?" then it's understandable that they'd think it's too unlikely for it all to fall into place like this; but surely if a scientist thought about the same, they'd be able to say "okay, the Greeks didn't know where X Y and Z came from, and so they became gods... now we know where X Y and Z came from, and they're no longer gods", and they'd be able to see the pattern.

I dunno, I'm talking sh*te now, cos I really don't understand them. I see science as the truth and as being so logical, and I see religion as being completely irrational, so I don't "get" how they can co-exist in someone's mind.

If you're going to say that god created the universe, then he might as well control everything, and scientific research seems kinda futile unless it's to build a smaller mobile phone or somethin. If you're going to say that science controls everything, then you might as well hold true to that for everything, and keep trying to explain the origin of the universe.

I don't get how someone can mix-and-match!

óbriain1988

I've noticed a lot of ye seem to get mixed up with "Fundis" as someone called them and other people who believe in God...I dont mean this to be patronising so please dont take it as such. Like i dont see how you could have difficulty believing a scientist having faith... I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...well proper religion anyway...now I know that these fundamentalist Christians believe in Genesis to be taken as literal fact, that there's no evolution and all that... but ye have to realise that these are a minority whos religion began in America (need I say more)....Now, if something is proven scientific fact then that's exactly what it is...science deals with truth on a physical worldy level, religion deals with truth on a metaphysical level. The two are seperate in essence...though that doesn't mean that they clash with each other in any way....There's nothing in science to deny any of the truth of Catholicism...there's no clash...science sheds light on how this world works... It doesn't even begin to explore why it is here or whatever because it's not science, it's a complete different area, i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

Zillah

&#243 wrote: »

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other

Yes they do, all the time. Science is a sceptical approach to the universe while religion is a presumptuous approach. Completely irreconcilable.

...well proper religion anyway...

*picks brain off floor*

Please define "proper religion"... And if your answer is "my religion" then we have a problem...

Although to be honest I'm having trouble thinking of an answer that will suffice.

now I know that these fundamentalist Christians believe in Genesis to be taken as literal fact, that there's no evolution and all that... but ye have to realise that these are a minority whos religion began in America (need I say more)....

Yay, lets throw a national slur in there too!

Now, if something is proven scientific fact then that's exactly what it is...science deals with truth on a physical worldy level, religion deals with truth on a metaphysical level.

Specious silliness to be quite honest. Religion invents answers, science proves them.

The two are seperate in essence...though that doesn't mean that they clash with each other in any way....There's nothing in science to deny any of the truth of Catholicism...there's no clash

:eek:

Ok, off the top of my head, here's a quick list of things about Catholicism that are completely irreconcilable with science:

- Presumed existence of God.
- Presumed existence of other realms of existence.
- Presumed belief in extradimensional entities in service to afformentioned God.
- Transubstantiation (my personal favourite).
- Miracle healings.
- Jesus' immaculate conception.
- Jesus' ressurection.
- Magic saints.

i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

Perhaps the above will have elucidated it for you.

Dave!

But religion says that 'god' created the universe, whereas I think a logical person would say 'I don't know' what created the universe -- but hopefully some day we'll discover what did.

That's kind of a sticking point for me.

I think tacking supernatural qualities onto something just because we don't currently fully understand it, is a cop-out. A scientist should be trying to understand and explain the unknown rather than just giving up and saying "ahh sure it's the work of god".

We no longer need a god Apollo or whatever, cos we know what the sun is!

edit: @ the other guy

Beruthiel

&#243 wrote: »

Like i dont see how you could have difficulty believing a scientist having faith...

I tend to see scientists having analytical minds where logic comes first, how religion fits into that is something I don't get.

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...

They do for me.

well proper religion anyway...

Brilliant

science sheds light on how this world works.....It doesn't even begin to explore why it is here or whatever because it's not science, it's a complete different area, i fail to see where the difficulties begin!

So what you are saying here, is that when one cannot explain why the world is here, we should just make something up. Ignorance is no reason to turn the reason into some mythical god. At one stage in our history, there was outrage at suggesting the world was not flat. Now we know differently. At sometime in the future science will continue to discover more about the universe, I prefer to wait for those answers rather than making something up and filling in the cracks with a god figure.

bonkey

When religion and science clash, it is because religion has stepped over what should be its boundary point.

Science does not and cannot address matters of faith.

It cannot address the existence or non-existence of a God unless and until a scientific definition of what God is exists. Such a definition, in and of itself, is anathema to the very concept of God, so its just not going to happen.

I am not aware of any genuine science that has ever intruded on matters of faith. There is some pseudo-science out there who's entire aim is to blur this distinction, I know, but thats seperate.

The reverse, however, is all too often untrue. Religion will often try to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, where quite frankly it has no business. Rather than sticking to the "why" of it all, religion has tread upon the uncertain ground of the "how", and generally ended up having its nose bloodied by science as a result.

Sometimes this is where religion has stepped up in the past to explain something before science did. The earth being at the centre of the universe and it all beginning with a single couple called Adam and Eve are nice illustrations of this. Alternately, we also have the more modern clashes, where the religious find certain scientific theories anathema for whatever reason, and will go to varying lengths to undermine such positions. Evolutionary theory is the obvious cause celebre here, but consider also the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality amonst other issues.

So yes, they clash, but only because and when some religious have claimed authority in a field that they have no authority in.

The notion of a religious/faithful scientist only causes a problem when the person in question has a faith or religious belief that erquires them to give their religious convinctions about the material world primacy over science. To be honest, though, at that point they cease to be scientists in any meaningful sense of the word.

pH

bonkey wrote:

The reverse, however, is all too often untrue. Religion will often try to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, where quite frankly it has no business. Rather than sticking to the "why" of it all, religion has tread upon the uncertain ground of the "how", and generally ended up having its nose bloodied by science as a result.

I'm not sure about the 'religion will often try ...', what exactly do you mean by that? I'm not sure that religion can in itself try and do anything. When you say 'religion will often try ...' do you actually mean 'people with supposed religious authority will often try ...'

Alternately, we also have the more modern clashes, where the religious find certain scientific theories anathema for whatever reason, and will go to varying lengths to undermine such positions. Evolutionary theory is the obvious cause celebre here, but consider also the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality amonst other issues.

Homosexuality is a scientific theory?

So yes, they clash, but only because and when some religious have claimed authority in a field that they have no authority in.

What field do they have authority in? From where does this authority come, and how can I tell if what they say is authoritative or the ravings of a madman?

bonkey

pH wrote:

I'm not sure about the 'religion will often try ...', what exactly do you mean by that?

óbriain1988 mentioned "religion and science" clashing.
Sillah mentioned "Religion invents answers"
DaveMcG mentioned that "religion says that 'god' created the universe"
Beruthiel mentioned that "science will continue to discover more about the universe"

All of this is before my post. Why, then, am I the first one being the one asked what my usage of religion as a personification means? Are theirs clear but mine somehow obscure?

Homosexuality is a scientific theory?

The causes of it are scientifically theorised about and investigated.
It is also "explained" by the Catholic church.

What field do they have authority in?

Where did I imply they have authority in any field?

how can I tell if what they say is authoritative or the ravings of a madman

You can't, no more than you can say that your own beliefs
(or anyone else's for that matter) about the existence or lack thereof of the spiritual and/or divine are authoritative or the ravings of a madman.

In such a field, religion and faith are equally as qualified as anyone else. Or as unqualified, if you prefer.

óbriain1988

Zillah wrote:

Ok, off the top of my head, here's a quick list of things about Catholicism that are completely irreconcilable with science:

- Presumed existence of God.
- Presumed existence of other realms of existence.
- Presumed belief in extradimensional entities in service to afformentioned God.
- Transubstantiation (my personal favourite).
- Miracle healings.
- Jesus' immaculate conception.
- Jesus' ressurection.
- Magic saints.



Perhaps the above will have elucidated it for you.

- Presumed existence of God.

How does science clash with this? Science hasn't proven that there is no God.. If you think of all the theories put forward for the "how" of the creation of the universe there's always the first cause issue...what caused the first cause in the chain that...eg the big bang theory...like the idea of what caused whatever it was to exist that exploded and turned into the universe...
Figuring out how exactly the universe in a physical sense was created doesn't really even get into the area of religion or denying it or anything..there's always the issue of what created the thing that created the blaa blaa blaa and so forth and so on....but this not really being the main issue is the point i was trying to make, they are complete seperate endevors...
Science is the study or the physical universe using available logic and all that carry on...Theism is the belief that there is a greater force that operates OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE that created it....in essence the goals they aim for are seperate from each one another and not related. It is for this reason that theists can "presume" things....it's the belief thats there's things we'll never understand at work...but they dont present these ideas as LOGICAL PROOF WITHIN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE...it's not science in the physical sense of the word...they dont presume things that exist in this world that oppose science...that's not religion is...so they don't clash on issues because they don't study the same issues so to speak! that's what im trying to say....sorry if it's a bit long and all that...but im just hoping like that i can get this across...no need for any hostile comments now like...discussing is the way to go like

I suppose the rest of the examples are just more "presuming" on our part....but that's also called "Faith". It's not presuming something that can be physically proven/disproven...it operates on the level that there's a level of existence that we can't understand....Science doesn't deal with this level...it deals with the physical universe etc etc...

On a side note, i wonder what this complete approach of "it must be proven before i will believe it" says about things like the creation of the universe..none of the theoires have been proven..yet the creation of the universe has happened...so what about people who believe in the big bang? this hasn't been fully proven...it's "presuming" that it could be true...it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

pH

&#243 wrote: »

Science is the study or the physical universe using available logic and all that carry on...Theism is the belief that there is a greater force that operates OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE that created it....in essence the goals they aim for are seperate from each one another and not related.
...
it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

Excellent, you're practically an atheist already.

Science as you say has nothing to say about the actions of a supernatural being that exists outside of (and created) this universe.

So if God to you is a supernatural being that created this universe 14 billion years ago and sodded off never to be seen from again, then great for you. I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a fellow atheist about the first few thousandths of a second of the universe, when we agree on the next 14 billion years.

That means that God has no plan for us, there's no soul, no afterlife, he's never revealed himself here on earth.

But you know what? That's not what most God-botherers would have us believe, here's what they say:

• God is eternal (He's already existed for an infinite time - that's quite a while, in fact enough time to to everything possible ... each one an infinite number of times)
  
• But in all this infinity he fires off a big bang, and creates a huge universe:
  
• 100,000,000,000 (100 Billion) Galaxies, each containing between 100 Million and a trillion stars.
  
• Because in one of those Galaxies, on a small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy, a race of bipedal hairless apes will evolve after a process lasting about 4 billion years.
• All of those other Stars seem to have been created solely to make the night sky look good, the rest of the stuff (Billions of Galaxies) we can't see with the naked eye seems to have been put there solely to fascinate astronomers.

And why has he done all this? Because out of 14 billion+ years available, he's decided that the carbon based lifeforms on this planet need 'testing' for about 80 years apiece to see if they are destined to spend the rest of 'eternity' celebrating that they passed this test, or bitterly regretting that they failed it.

Yea, but you've got your faith and that's what counts.

I wouldn't normally quote Freud, but here goes

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Funsterdelux

&#243 wrote: »

I know this might sound a bit fantastical but religion and science don't actually clash with each other...

I think a Simpson's quote is in order here:

"As for religion and science, I'm placing a restraining order, Religion must stay 500 feet from Science at all times."

There could be many scientists who are "yes mother" guys/gals.

stevejazzx

pH wrote:

Excellent, you're practically an atheist already.

Science as you say has nothing to say about the actions of a supernatural being that exists outside of (and created) this universe.

So if God to you is a supernatural being that created this universe 14 billion years ago and sodded off never to be seen from again, then great for you. I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a fellow atheist about the first few thousandths of a second of the universe, when we agree on the next 14 billion years.

That means that God has no plan for us, there's no soul, no afterlife, he's never revealed himself here on earth.

But you know what? That's not what most God-botherers would have us believe, here's what they say:

• God is eternal (He's already existed for an infinite time - that's quite a while, in fact enough time to to everything possible ... each one an infinite number of times)
• But in all this infinity he fires off a big bang, and creates a huge universe:
• 100,000,000,000 (100 Billion) Galaxies, each containing between 100 Million and a trillion stars.
• Because in one of those Galaxies, on a small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy, a race of bipedal hairless apes will evolve after a process lasting about 4 billion years.
• All of those other Stars seem to have been created solely to make the night sky look good, the rest of the stuff (Billions of Galaxies) we can't see with the naked eye seems to have been put there solely to fascinate astronomers.

And why has he done all this? Because out of 14 billion+ years available, he's decided that the carbon based lifeforms on this planet need 'testing' for about 80 years apiece to see if they are destined to spend the rest of 'eternity' celebrating that they passed this test, or bitterly regretting that they failed it.

Yea, but you've got your faith and that's what counts.

I wouldn't normally quote Freud, but here goes

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."

Superlative posting PH, particulary the piece I've highlighted. One thing though isn't the world supposed to be 4-5 billion years though and not 14 as you say or have I missed a science lesson(s)?

Funsterdelux

Steve

From what Ive learned the universe is 14 years old and the world around 4 years old times a billion

guildofevil

14 Billion years ~= Age of universe, according to current thinking.
Although I have seen figures between 10 and 20 billion years quoted.

All ridiculous though, as everyone knows that the earth is a meer 6,000 years old and that the universe was created a matter of days before that, just so that there was something for the Earth to exists in.

stevejazzx

Funsterdelux wrote:

Steve

From what Ive learned the universe is 14 years old and the world around 4 years old times a billion

oh yeah the universe I forget about that....primitive old me....4 billion ought to be enough though...how much time does someone need:) ?


Note to self: Stop forgetting about the universe.

Zillah

&#243 wrote: »

- Presumed existence of God.

How does science clash with this? Science hasn't proven that there is no God..

Exactly. Anyone being scientific has to say "I don't know" when asked how the Big Bang happened. A Catholic says "God did it". Hence, Catholicism and Science are not compatible.

If you think of all the theories put forward for the "how" of the creation of the universe there's always the first cause issue...what caused the first cause in the chain that...eg the big bang theory...like the idea of what caused whatever it was to exist that exploded and turned into the universe...

Ah, now you're thinking! What started God? If nothing started God and he transcends space and time, why can't you just apply that same logic to the Big Bang?

Because a book didn't tell you to? I can write that book if you like.

but they dont present these ideas as LOGICAL PROOF WITHIN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE...

Yes they do, like all those examples I posted above that you've ignored. A pure theist doesn't clash with science on a practical level. Someone who says "I believe there is an all powerful entity who created the universe but is outside the universe" does not clash with science.

But a Catholic doesn't say that, he says the above and says "...but then did a whole load of other stuff that interferes with the world including sending a magic son to save the world, causes miracles, blew up Soddom etc etc".

that's what im trying to say....sorry if it's a bit long and all that...but im just hoping like that i can get this across...no need for any hostile comments now like...discussing is the way to go like

You're ignoring what I'm saying, like.

I suppose the rest of the examples are just more "presuming" on our part....but that's also called "Faith". It's not presuming something that can be physically proven/disproven...it operates on the level that there's a level of existence that we can't understand....Science doesn't deal with this level...it deals with the physical universe etc etc...

More specious silliness. Saints who can magically cure people clash with science. Transubstantiation is specifically described as not being a metaphor, it is the literal transmutation from bread and wine to body and blood. You think that completely unprovable observation is scientific?

You just don't get science.

On a side note, i wonder what this complete approach of "it must be proven before i will believe it" says about things like the creation of the universe..none of the theoires have been proven..yet the creation of the universe has happened...so what about people who believe in the big bang? this hasn't been fully proven...it's "presuming" that it could be true...it's exercising a bit of "faith"......ohhhhhh dirty word!

Finally, I think you might be starting to get it.

People who presume things are not scientific. Like someone who believes whole heartidly that the Big Bang created the universe. Thats not scientific. If someone has "faith" in the big bang then their not scientific. 'Faith' is a dirty word, well done.

Dades

I think what Zillah is "enthusiastically" trying to say is that the concept that a god created all matter is not at odds with science. However the concept of specific gods that have been given credit for occurances that have scientific explanations - are at odds with science.

Religion is the attempt to define an otherwise stand-alone god concept, by applying characteristics to god(s) which almost always result in conflicts with what science has taught us.

The idea that the laws of science shouldn't apply to religion is fine so long as religion doesn't tell us that something happened that contravened the laws of science.

Zillah

I am most enthusiastic

Its rivalled only by my vociferousness....ness.

r3nu4l

Okay, I'm a scientist (molecular Biologist) who has published in International journals. I know other scientists who are very well respected in International industry and are members of the Knights of Columbanus, ergo practicing Roman Catholics.

I have manipulated DNA to clone genes for experimentation, developed genetically modified virus, bacteria and yeast, and I have mutated genes so they perform as I want them to.

That sets the scene...
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who believes in God. I don't believe everything written in the Bible as being literal truth and so far as I'm aware neither does the church.

So far as I am aware the church accepts the Big Bang theory because it allows for the existence of God before the Big Bang. Accepting the Big Bang also accepts (by default) that the universe is a tad older than 6,000 years.

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

We should also remember that proof is hard to find, hence we have Pythagerous theorum in trigonometry, not yet proven. There is staggering amounts of evidence to say that it is correct but no proof. It will take only one instance where the theorum does not apply for it to be scrapped and trigonometry to be re-written.

That is the nature of science and therefore a really good science will set belief aside and think that rationally, we cannot disprove God, therefore we must allow for the existence of God, subsequently we must then decide whether we have belief or not.

My life experience and prayer has led me to believe that there is a God but I accept I could be wrong, despite believing I'm right.

Dave!

r3nu4l wrote:

A scientist must accept the possibility of a divine being simply because science should never rule out anything that cannot be disproved. Until someone can perform an experiment that conclusively proves there is no God, then we must accept that there may be a God.

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

Rev Hellfire

DaveMcG wrote:

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

While they are unlikely its not impossible, given that a lot of legend stems from an historical source it is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the unicorn is a corruption of of the idea of a oryx or some other horned animal. Even at times the ridiculous can have a grain of truth.

r3nu4l

DaveMcG wrote:

We must therefore also accept that there may be such things as unicorns, they're just extremely unlikely.

Now you're getting there, that's the spirit!

People thought there were only two species of elephant, now we know there are at least four...

Last week in a survey of a small area in the Amazon jungle 40 new species were discovered and at least one new genus.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
The Sign of Four (1890)

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."
The Sign of Four (1890)

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet (1892)

"That is the case as it appears to the police, and improbable as it is, all other explanations are more improbable still."
Silver Blaze (1892)

"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of Bruce-Partington Plans (1908)

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of The Blanched Soldier (1926)

"It is more than possible; it is probable."
Silver Blaze (1892)

bonkey

r3nu4l wrote:

We should also remember that proof is hard to find, hence we have Pythagerous theorum in trigonometry, not yet proven.

Huh? There's no shortage of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Heres 64 of them.

There is staggering amounts of evidence to say that it is correct but no proof. It will take only one instance where the theorum does not apply for it to be scrapped and trigonometry to be re-written.

Umm...no. In science, theories may never be proven, but in mathematics they can be and are.

The only way to "disprove" a theory in maths is to show as false one of the base axioms of the entire mathematical system on which any given proof is based on.

However, the point you make is valid in terms of scientific theory.

Our understanding of gravity always being attractive, for example, and being related to the square of the distance...that is unproven and could be turned on its head by observation.

jc

Dades

r3nu4l, thanks for the viewpoint from the other side.

r3nu4l wrote:

I accept I could be wrong, despite believing I'm right.

I think that all most of us can say.

And before anyone says it - no, that doesn't make us agnostics.

r3nu4l

bonkey wrote:

Huh? There's no shortage of proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.

Heres 64 of them.

Okay, didn't realise that, replace pythagerous and trig with some other random unproven theory! Feel better?:p

bonkey wrote:

Umm...no. In science, theories may never be proven, but in mathematics they can be and are.

Umm...yes. The structure of DNA has been Mathematically proven. Also, Mathematics is the fundamental (and some would say, only) true science. Therefore science theories can be proven, but biological and chemical ones aren't often because they are too complex for Mathematics as it stands. New branches of Mathematics and greater computing power are needed to prove many observations from the "other" sciences. C'mon guys, catch up! Sharpen those pencils and get the calculators out!

bonkey wrote:

The only way to "disprove" a theory in maths is to show as false one of the base axioms of the entire mathematical system on which any given proof is based on.

However, the point you make is valid in terms of scientific theory.

Our understanding of gravity always being attractive, for example, and being related to the square of the distance...that is unproven and could be turned on its head by observation.

jc

Glad you agree