Here is something to help the lay scientist. While you may not accept what is posted by people of faith (simply because they are people of faith) you might accept it from the University of Berkeley. These are some of the basic unprovable assumptions and there are many more. Many current theories are a compilation of assumption upon assumption and while they may make interesting hypothesis, they are far from been proven as reality.
Notice that even gravity is an unprovable assumption. Whether some of the theories that form out of these assumptions are reasonable really depends on how observable, measurable and reproducible they are.
The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:
There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes. Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don't change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.
Here is some more from Indiana University. Notice that science ASSUMES that Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world and that scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge (and therefore uncertain). It is not absolute knowledge (certain and eternally true).
Notice that even gravity is an unprovable assumption. Whether some of the theories that form out of these assumptions are reasonable really depends on how observable, measurable and reproducible they are.
The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:
There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes. Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don't change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
- The world is real. The physical universe exists apart from our sensory experiences.
- Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe.
- Natural processes are sufficient for understanding the natural world.
- Nature operates uniformly throughout the universe in space and time.
BASIC LIMITATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
- Our senses have their own biological limitations. Even technological devices for extending those limitations have their own limits of accuracy and range.
- Our mental processing of sensory data is not always reliable. We are influenced by previous experiences, biases, and degrees of attention, all contingent* on circumstances.
- It’s impossible to know if we have considered all possible alternative explanations.
- Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge (and therefore uncertain). It is not absolute knowledge (certain and eternally true). It is dependent on available evidence, circumstances, tools and our analysis.
Comment