Anyone interested in Electronics?
Pages: 12
closed account (z05DSL3A)
The phrasal verb 'believe in' would only have religious connotations if the object of the sentence was religious. e.g. 'I believe in god'. You can say, 'I believe in the justice system', meaning that you trust the justice system not that you have any religious following there of.
I don't understand String Theory enough to make a decision about it, when I got to M-theory my brain turned to a quivering bowl of jelly. Thats theoretical physics for you, trying to turn everything into a wobbling something or other.
I don't understand String Theory enough to make a decision about it, when I got to M-theory my brain turned to a quivering bowl of jelly. Thats theoretical physics for you, trying to turn everything into a wobbling something or other.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| "Belief" implies "faith", which is the acceptance of a claim as fact without the need of proof. |
That is one definition of faith, here are some others:
A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen.
Have faith that the criminal justice system will avenge the murder.
A trust in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or belief in spite of a lack of knowledge in the person, object, or belief.
I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man.
(Christian theology) Belief and trust in the Christian God's promises revealed through Christ in the New Testament.
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. (Hebrews 11:1)
It is all about context.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Implying the lack of proof is different to the acceptance of a claim without the need of proof.
but anyway; as there is no definitive proof of the validity of string theory, would you not therefore need to have faith or believe in it if you thought that it is true? so to answer your question, Since when do scientific theories need to be believed in? They need to be believed in by anyone interested in them until they are proved.
Anyway, enough of this wordsmithing...
but anyway; as there is no definitive proof of the validity of string theory, would you not therefore need to have faith or believe in it if you thought that it is true? so to answer your question, Since when do scientific theories need to be believed in? They need to be believed in by anyone interested in them until they are proved.
Anyway, enough of this wordsmithing...
| Implying the lack of proof is different to the acceptance of a claim without the need of proof. |
Of course, physics theories are unprovable, so I guess you can only "believe" in them. Or rather, believe (as in, "to think", "to have the notion") that they are true.
True; I guess you can't really prove that a bunch of tiny spheres that you coincidentally can't see are what you are made of. These spheres (atoms, which interestingly means something which cannot be made smaller*) are in fact made up of smaller spheres (electrons, neutrons, protons) which are made up of even smaller spheres (quarks) and are joined together to make slightly bigger spheres (cells) which connect again to make you. The spheres magically connect to each other by a mystical substance known as "Physics". Oh and everything is essentially made of energy. That's right. When the energy stored in your energy is converted to kinetic energy which allows you to move (thus converting it into some other form of energy, usually thermal (which is really kinetic energy because the temperature of a substance is defined by the vibration of it's particles)). Want to know where all this energy came from? Well, tough shit.
You can't fly because of gravity. Gravity is another magical thing we call a "force". These forces are invisible and therefore you cannot prove they don't exist. Science 1, you 0. Now don't question me or I'll set my atoms on you!
It's the Catholic Church all over again!
*
You can't fly because of gravity. Gravity is another magical thing we call a "force". These forces are invisible and therefore you cannot prove they don't exist. Science 1, you 0. Now don't question me or I'll set my atoms on you!
It's the Catholic Church all over again!
*
| The name atom comes from the Greek ἄτομος/átomos, α-τεμνω, which means uncuttable, something that cannot be divided further |
Last edited on
Yep. Actually, no theory that attempts to explain a natural phenomenon of any kind (e.g. gravitation, evolution, psychoanalysis) can be proven. Maybe cancer isn't lethal, it's just a coincidence that a lot of people with cancer die.
The only theories than can be proven are those that relate to abstract ideas, mainly in mathematics and related fields. I believe they are called conjectures when they haven't been proven yet, and theorems when they have.
The only theories than can be proven are those that relate to abstract ideas, mainly in mathematics and related fields. I believe they are called conjectures when they haven't been proven yet, and theorems when they have.
In the same way if I say a flying crocodile that eats people with cancer exists; and said crocodile was invisible, you can't prove me wrong.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12