I'll have to go do some additional literature research. That area of the brain also plays a role in brand preferences, according to some fMRI neuroscience research. Brand loyalty and fundamentalist religious beliefs might well be related.

I have a paper somewhere in my pile on this. Since I'm currently involved in studying neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience, I have quite a pile of research papers. I'll have to look through them to see what was said about the relationship.

But the proven facts of science and technology have overall been a massive asset, good, for humanity.

Rigorous questioning, testing, of our beliefs, theories, has turned out to be extremely useful too.

"Test everything," as Paul said. With, as Daniel added, "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

Einstein's Theories of Relativity did not make Newton's theory of gravity go away. His work incorporated and included Newton's theory.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 05:06 AM - Edit history (1)

He had several theories. Some of which only very recently confirmed. Like black holes and, allegedly, gravity waves. Some yet to be proven or clarified.

Among scientists though, such theories as are proven, typically do go through a name change; into say, "law."

As for one theory subsuming another? In such cases, the older theory in effect is modified, often partly disproven, by the.new contextualization. Proving it was a theory, and not an absolute fact.

A scientific law is a collection of facts which explain part of the natural universe. A scientific theory is a model which explains something in the natural universe. So it's not as if one is designed to eventually become the other. Both are tools used by science and while having some intersection they are really two different things. One answers the question "what" and the other answers the question "why".

Einstein's theories were built not just on math, but on a series of shocking, inexplicable empirical observations by physicists, about light, electricity, atoms. So his theories were derived by induction, from observations of ... many concrete things.

As it turned out, those observations might hold for many, even all things, as a general observation. But if not? Then those laws hold for a small class of subatomic things.

As I currently hypothesize, in a preliminary way.

If some theories now seem factual, and not general explanations? Or vice versa? Those are shifting moments in an often ever-changing picture. That sometimes stresses one, and sometimes the other.

A fact is something that can be proved. A scientific theory is more of a practical model which explains something in a useful way. It works for all testable applications, but it's only proven for the things you can test it against.

In other words let's say I have a theory that says all grass is green because every blade ever observed is green. It stands to reason every new hybrid or varietal of grass will also be green, but it does not mean there will never be an eventual one that will be a different color because I have no way to prove this to be always true.

They've been proven to be incorrect on a universal scale, but they are still correct enough on our own planet in everyday use to be valid. You can use those equations, as long as your point of reference is scaled for our own planet.

Non-Newtonian Physics is full of theories about the laws of physics in other situations. Newton got his "laws" wrong, but we still use them, because they work in our own environment.

These days, you don't hear a lot of about the Laws of Science. That's old terminology. We have theories about just about everything that are supported by existing evidence. When new evidence is available, the theories are modified by that evidence. That's what science is all about. Evidence.

Anything that doesn't involve real, observable or measurable evidence can't be science. Religion is one such thing.

It all, even theory, seems to be concepts ... based on material evidence .. and objects.

I guess to be sure, that technically even material objects, even the cup of coffee in front of me, is only theoretical. Since it's not even a solid object, in the view that sees it as empty space, only partly filled by a tangle of competing atomic energies. And my brain sees it as solid, only thanks to built in theories in my brain, that are tuned to see it, predict it.

But most physical objects, though variable in many ways, are pretty stable on this world. And can be counted on as stable Material evidence for this or that theory. And especially the theory that there are real-enough, material things, objects, out there.

I guess that's where I'm headed. 1) Theories need material things as material evidence. 2) Even though even material things themselves are in some ways, hypothetical constructs, 3) still, they are stable enough to rely on. They are probably the firmest theoretical constructs we have.

4) Religionists like to point to some of that, to say it's all mental or spiritual, and is "faith" specifically. But?

Since objects are our firmest ideas or theories, by far, then they are in effect in a class by themselves. And very useful as evidence in any theory you might propose. And useful as evidence for or against, almost any mental or 'spiritual" idea or construct.

If that makes sense?

I'd add that 5) even if we do not refer so much to to "laws" any more, we do still refer to material objects, as having some substantial, evidential reality. And even our many theories about life, probably contain, are based in, objects.

So 6) even if nothing was entirely, simply material, still, nothing is entirely spiritual either. Material objects have probably always been, and likely for a long time will still remain. As therefore the firmest foundation for our ideas about life.

And the spirituality and faith that abandons that base, is very foolish.

It seems. No "spiritual" properties have yet been discovered. If it is immaterial how does it interact in any meaningful way with the material Universe?

We have seen to the end of the Universe, down to the Plank length, and yet no soul has been found.

Not by us anyway. The best we can get is probability.

But there are some things that seem far, far, far more likely than others. Those far more likely things, we could call "facts "

All things may be possible, but not all things are probable

...

Or is that sake 酒?

Scientists ran studies, that tried hard to avoild such biases. And found that it probably did exist to a degree. In cases where, say, the facts were very well known, but some had an opposite thesis.