Signs of JDay and some scientific facts.

[MrSlave]

Go ahead and explain to us the scientific method as you understand it!

best,

How do you understand it? Scientists experiment, collect data, refine their experiments, hypothesise and then publish their results so that others can contest them. Anything is open to challenge and we develop a better understanding of our world. Religion says, "This is the truth and don't dare question it". I know which method I prefer.

 

[Scimitar]

I can't wait til Mustafa MC makes an appearance here oooh, getting goosebumps already

 

[Independent]

But were you there when this happened?

Alas, I'm a couple of hundred thousand years too young.

 

[جوري]

How do you understand it? Scientists experiment, collect data, refine their experiments, hypothesise and then publish their results so that others can contest them. Anything is open to challenge and we develop a better understanding of our world. Religion says, "This is the truth and don't dare question it". I know which method I prefer.

It doesn't matter how I understand, what matters is how you understand since you're the one who questioned our lack of understanding. It is only fair you make do to lay down the powers of your phenomenal scientific mind before us.

If you were truly interested in my understanding then I have already covered it in the health & science section under medical student review!

Also don't pretend to be so open minded and in the same breath tell us what our religion says.
best,

 

[جوري]

here to make your life easier is how I understand the scientific method:

the logic of statistics is you can never prove anything all you can do is disprove something!
if I want to prove a drug works, I can't, but what I can do is disprove that the drug doesn't work! Ahhhhhh the (double negative) that is the way to get to where you wanted!

we have a double blind randomized design to prove that a new wonder drug works, one half of the participants gets the wonder drug, the other half gets placebo
follow both groups and see when they will have relief from their symptoms,

1- the research design isn't flawed

now let's discuss the null hypothesis ..the 'null hypothesis is the opposite of what you want to find. group A fails to get over the sx. faster than group B.
with the null hypothesis we state it and then leave it alone .. we pass out pills and collect data next .. take the data feed it into the computer ..
what comes out T as in a t test, x^2, f etc etc.
we should only focus on the P value is key for making statistical decisions
we make decisions by putting a standard in place and comparing empirical evidence to it .. so that is what the P value is, the standard and the summary of the data .
this alpha criterion is something you decide before you make your research, you can set the value high or low, it is your discretion
people put the value of P at less than or equal to .05
a confidence interval of 95% means one is correct 95% of the time .. the other five percent is the time when one is wrong
a confidence interval of 95% corresponds exactly to a P value of </=0.05
95% chance of being right, 5 % chance of being wrong

outcomes for our study p=.02
.02 is under the bar which is very good because it means we get to 'reject the null hypothesis' because the null hypothesis is the opposite of what we are looking for .. if we reject the null hypothesis, the drug works!

is it possible that the drug works in the study but not out in the world?
yes possible though unlikely..

what this means is that we have made a type one error, or alpha error, this type of error basically states we rejected the null hypothesis but we shouldn't have . You'll never know for sure if you have made a type one error, all you know is the chance that you made a type one error that chance is found in the p value a .02 i.e a 2% chance .
p value is type one error
if the number for the p value gets too low, we'll take that chance

2nd outcome for the study, p=1.3 we are now above the bar, we can't reject the null hypothesis, we fail to reject the null hypothesis..
you never 'accept the null hypothesis'
same as 'jury logic' not that you are innocent, just that there isn't enough evidence to convict you . the chance for a type one error here? = 0 why? because to make a type one error you must first reject the null hypothesis.
however in this case we could have made a beta type error means, I didn't reject the null hypothesis but I should have .. in other words in the study the drug is crap, but out in the real world, it works well..
chance of making a type two error? we don't know.. can't look at P value because P value only tells us a type one error ONLY!

type one error is considered worse ..
which is worse looking at you and lying or simply forgetting to tell you something?
lying is worse, that is a type one error a 'sin of commission' because first do no harm is a physician's oath.

now you are giving this new drug because it has been approved and works great, the patient is now asking this drug works great in research, what is the chance it will work for me? best response is 'I don't know' this gives you statistical significance not clinical significance!

you can answer the patient by looking at the table the one that tells you, who got the drug, who didn't get the drug, got better, didn't get better
got drug got better 70%
got drug didn't get better 30%
no drug better 30%
not better no drug 70%

pt.s chance of getting better on drug
the answer here is 70% chance of getting better out of one hundred people that got the drug 70% of them got better!
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134270536-medical-student-review-7.html#post1337181

Now go ahead please and dazzle me with your brilliance!

 

[Abu Loren]

^
^
^

I didn't understand one word of the above but I gave it a 'Like' that's how kind I am. :shade:

 

[Ahmad H]

Whats with the negativity regarding science here? Allah has made men who understood how to observe His nature so well that they devised a method of looking at it and learning what is going on. Of course no one is completely certain, but to look at nature is part of looking at the signs of Allah. Did not Allah constantly say to "observe" what He created? I can't stress this enough. Only one verse is enough for this topic of discussion:

7:185 Do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all things that Allah has created; and that it may be that the end of their lives is near. In what message after this will they then believe?

This verse is saying to observe the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING that Allah has created. It could be that our lives are near at an end. How true this is. When it comes to looking out for natural disasters and creating warning systems, we learn how frail our existence is and how very susceptible to the forces of nature we are. Scientists know this. They may try to devise ways around it. But in the end they cannot protect us from what Allah has decreed for us.

In response to the "sun rising in the west", none of you knows what you are talking about. You will only know when it happens. Do you know best what Allah means by what He says? This sign could be a literal sign of the sun rising in the west, or it could be a metaphorical meaning of the sun rising in the West. The sun would mean something else entirely, and the West would signify something else entirely - but not something completely unknown. So stop speculating. If you should look at this issue, look at it from the perspective of the Holy Qur'an. This needs an entirely different post altogether in order to be explained from the Holy Qur'an, but I would like for you all to rethink mere speculations. Opinions mean nothing. Only statements of the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Prophet (saw), and the opinions of scholars matter. At least look at the linguistics of these matters before you make random speculations. Maybe the "west" signifies something, and the "sun" signifies something else. And maybe the "rise" is something completely different.

 

[Scimitar]

Whats with the negativity regarding science here?

Assalaam alaikum

The Modern scientific method is not in question, what is, is the fact that it is being abused to allow for strange and unnatural theories to develop - like evolution - which is then taught as fact in schools whereas religions are taught as fairytales... and the kids are still expected to believe that satan claus is real - sorry, I meant santa claus.

Yeah, the pun was intended

...anyway, this results in kids who grow up to foster the same flawed mindset as brother MrD here and this is what we are trying to show him, the hypocrisy and irony of his world view Yet, he just won't wanna accept that.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Ofcourse, he probably won't trun up tonight because it's a Saturday and we all know what that means he's out painting the town red. May Allah give him guidance, Ameen.

 

[Ahmad H]

Assalaam alaikum

The Modern scientific method is not in question, what is, is the fact that it is being abused to allow for strange and unnatural theories to develop - like evolution - which is then taught as fact in schools whereas religions are taught as fairytales... and the kids are still expected to believe that satan claus is real - sorry, I meant santa claus.

Yeah, the pun was intended

Scimi

Wa 'alaykum as-salaam,

I understand that. But evolution being taught in schools is not a bad thing from my point of view. I learned about it in high school, and I found that I understood the Qur'an more because I heard of what was said about evolution. It sounded more like a commentary of the Qur'an because the statements were ones I remember reading in the Qur'an. When they said that we are mostly made up of carbon, and that the substance we came from was a clay-like material, then I felt like this was an explanation of our creation from clay. When it was explained that life came from water and how it came from water, then I remembered how Allah said that all life forms are from water in the Holy Qur'an. (21:30, 24:45)

I still don't see the problem with evolution. Yes, it is a theory. And yes, it is used to try and disprove Allah's existence. But, it does not disprove His existence in reality. This problem with evolution seems childish to me. It is not against the Qur'an at all. It proved as a sign of Allah's creation of the universe. It is definitely misused by scientists to prove otherwise, but that does not necessitate it as being false. Again, this is a part of looking into the creation of Allah. I end off with a verse of the Holy Qur'an which is enough to ponder over:

41:53 We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?

 

[IAmZamzam]

How do you understand it? Scientists experiment, collect data, refine their experiments, hypothesise and then publish their results so that others can contest them. Anything is open to challenge and we develop a better understanding of our world. Religion says, "This is the truth and don't dare question it". I know which method I prefer.

I'm extremely confused. What I'm hearing here sounds absolutely unmistakably like that same snooty straw man attack which every single antireligious and antitheistic believer in what is called "scientism" or "pseudoskepticism" in the world always makes in these situations--and yet I am not hearing it from a pseudoskeptic. Rather, it's coming from a man who has the word "Judaism" listed next to "religion" in his profile. How can a religious fellow side with people against religion like that?

 

[Scimitar]

Wa 'alaykum as-salaam,

I understand that. But evolution being taught in schools is not a bad thing from my point of view. I learned about it in high school, and I found that I understood the Qur'an more because I heard of what was said about evolution. It sounded more like a commentary of the Qur'an because the statements were ones I remember reading in the Qur'an. When they said that we are mostly made up of carbon, and that the substance we came from was a clay-like material, then I felt like this was an explanation of our creation from clay. When it was explained that life came from water and how it came from water, then I remembered how Allah said that all life forms are from water in the Holy Qur'an. (21:30, 24:45)

I still don't see the problem with evolution. Yes, it is a theory. And yes, it is used to try and disprove Allah's existence. But, it does not disprove His existence in reality. This problem with evolution seems childish to me. It is not against the Qur'an at all. It proved as a sign of Allah's creation of the universe. It is definitely misused by scientists to prove otherwise, but that does not necessitate it as being false. Again, this is a part of looking into the creation of Allah. I end off with a verse of the Holy Qur'an which is enough to ponder over:

41:53 We will show them Our signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things?

Alhamdulillah you was privy to that information due to your upbringing...

...but what of the multitudes that aren't so fortunate bro? take for example - brother MrD here - he wasn't and just look at his world view, it's very questionable... even his logic is quesitonable, and his train of thought, and his methods of trying to engage in a debate which is wholly reminiscent of troll culture.

Scimi

 

[Ahmad H]

I'm extremely confused. What I'm hearing here sounds absolutely unmistakably like that same snooty straw man attack which every single antireligious and antitheistic believer in what is called "scientism" or "pseudoskepticism" in the world always makes in these situations--and yet I am not hearing it from a pseudoskeptic. Rather, it's coming from a man who has the word "Judaism" listed next to "religion" in his profile. How can a religious fellow side with people against religion like that?

You do realize that Jews includes people who are atheist, right? It was a shock for me to learn that. But it's true. There are Jews who are non-religious, and Jews who are religious.

 

[Scimitar]

Yes, Jews are a race, not a religion I used to get confused about that too back in the day.

 

[IAmZamzam]

No, it doesn't say, "Ethnicity: Jewish" (the proper term is "Hebraic" anyway, I think--or else just "Hebrew", I guess). He has the word right next to "religion".

By all accounts I've heard it was actually Hitler who primarily came up with the idea that the Jews were a race.

In fact the very idea of "race" wasn't really a thing until a few centuries ago anyway, and has little basis in objective genetic fact. Before that it was all about "nations", and when people rarely insulted each other over skin color it was just a quick visual reference point to which nation or region they were from. It's complicated.

 

[Scimitar]

Sorry bro, but you are majorly wrong on this point:

In fact the very idea of "race" wasn't really a thing until a few centuries ago anyway, and has little basis in objective genetic fact. Before that it was all about "nations", and when people rarely insulted each other over skin color it was just a quick visual reference point to which nation or region they were from. It's complicated.

Racism has existed way before that. Heck, even in the Prophets time (pbuh) the balck people were often just called "black" in a derogatory way. And this has not let up since... now we have even more derogatory words for black, like the n word.

I can give you many examples throughout the course of history which chart the racism peoples have experienced and how it affected their localities, in some cases, causing them to move to newer climes altogether.

This, all over the colour of one peoples skin.

Scimi

 

[IAmZamzam]

It was just a quick visual reference point to which nation or region they were from. It's complicated.

This thread has gone off topic so many times now I'd not care to count them. I admit I'm as responsible as anyone but it really is high time we got back to the original subject.

 

[Abu Loren]

Whats with the negativity regarding science here? Allah has made men who understood how to observe His nature so well that they devised a method of looking at it and learning what is going on. Of course no one is completely certain, but to look at nature is part of looking at the signs of Allah. Did not Allah constantly say to "observe" what He created? I can't stress this enough. Only one verse is enough for this topic of discussion:

7:185 Do they not look in the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all things that Allah has created; and that it may be that the end of their lives is near. In what message after this will they then believe?

This verse is saying to observe the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING that Allah has created. It could be that our lives are near at an end. How true this is. When it comes to looking out for natural disasters and creating warning systems, we learn how frail our existence is and how very susceptible to the forces of nature we are. Scientists know this. They may try to devise ways around it. But in the end they cannot protect us from what Allah has decreed for us.

In response to the "sun rising in the west", none of you knows what you are talking about. You will only know when it happens. Do you know best what Allah means by what He says? This sign could be a literal sign of the sun rising in the west, or it could be a metaphorical meaning of the sun rising in the West. The sun would mean something else entirely, and the West would signify something else entirely - but not something completely unknown. So stop speculating. If you should look at this issue, look at it from the perspective of the Holy Qur'an. This needs an entirely different post altogether in order to be explained from the Holy Qur'an, but I would like for you all to rethink mere speculations. Opinions mean nothing. Only statements of the Holy Qur'an, the Holy Prophet (saw), and the opinions of scholars matter. At least look at the linguistics of these matters before you make random speculations. Maybe the "west" signifies something, and the "sun" signifies something else. And maybe the "rise" is something completely different.

What a load of RUBBISH!

 

[MrSlave]

Quoting P numbers and statistics doesn't disprove science. Evolution is a fact. It seems to me that people here have a raft of arguments waiting to contradict any bit of evidence that tries to get you to see the world as it is rather than how it needs to be to fit your view. Clay? I suppose there are still people who believe that Eve was made out of a rib but they are in the minority in christianity.

Next thing you will be pointing me to all the scientific proofs in the Quran that there way before scientists discovered them. I have already been there.

 

[جوري]

Your beliefs are irrelevant and so is where you've 'already been' - if you want to discuss science then discuss science no one is interested in your opinion otherwise - everyone opines!

Best,