Do you mean what is the difference in reading the Bible versus doing research in….? What does personal experience verified by the Bible mean? This happened in my life. In , my freshmen year at Ole Miss, my brother came to the dormitory and awakened me and told me mother had a massive heart attack. When I got to the hospital, Dr.
When I came from the bathroom, Dr. Gilmore was walking down the hall….. In , was driving home a horredous storm. I had the kids in the car with me. The power had gone off and there was no street lights. I drove over a hill, and before i could stop, drove into deep water and the car stalled and went dead. Tried to crank it, no luck. Tried several times and no luck. The water was rising and getting faster. I took the kids hands and we prayed. I drove out of the water. Anyway, crisw yes i have done reading on it.
Did you watch the video? Where did the energy come from? These are examples of anecdotes. Anecdotes cannot be used to verify any scientific claim as they are not replicable and are always colored by the mind of the observer. Suffice to say that there are plenty of scientific explanations for it: The difference between nonscientific and scientific research is understanding the cause and affect. Nonscientific research is this happened the sick healed, the paralyzed walked there must be a god.
Navaho practice was if a mouse ran across your clothes it was a sign to burn the clothes. Turns out they were right. The sick healed because their immune system fought off the illness. The Bible is a wonderful work full of wisdom of the ancients. But as far as proof of the existence of God is concerned, it is nothing more than a tautology. The Bible says it is the revealed word of God. Since it says that, and it says there is a God, obviously there is a God. Science relies on observation. Not observation of what someone wrote in a book, but observation of phenomena in the Universe around us.
Science puts forward a model to explain a set of apparently related observations. From this model, it makes predictions of other phenomena we should be able to observe if the model is correct. This theory is then subjected to peer review.
Other concerned scientists test the experiments of the theory to determine if they can independently replicate them.
They look for predictions that would flow from the theory, but that they can disprove by testing. Only if the theory survives this vigorous and unending peer review does it stand. If a theory predicts something that proves false, we either drop the theory altogether or figure out how the new observation impacts it so we can constantly improve the theory so that it predicts observable phenomena. There are two possible God Models.
One posits a god who wrote all the laws the Universe runs by, and started the Universe evolving as these laws determine, but who does not intervene in any way with the day to day operation of the Universe today.
This model is untestable and cannot be falsified. So it is definitely not science. The second God Model posits a God who does intervene in the day-to-day workings of the Universe. This model is testable and falsifiable, and it has failed every scientific test its been put to.
The Universe follows the known laws of physics. If there were a supernatural being intervening routinely and bending these laws, we would be able to observe the deviations from natural law such interference would produce. So this model has been falsified. It, too, is not science. Other research is based on logic and reason exclusively, or is subjective and experiential which is usually anecdotal and thus not easily repeated.
I took the time to do some research and provide some links on several theories of how it was possible. Within minutes, I got back a flippant response.
When I asked the person if the links I provided had been read, since they showed several ways that the mentioned phenomenon was possible, I got the reply: I thought we were talking about [the subject of the conversation]; what does a belief in a god which is what I presume you are talking about have to do with that?
Give me real evidence for something and I will change my mind. CaptainHarley — I would beg to differ, and say that pure logic is not research. My friend would probably say that scientists have an agenda to prove what they believe in just like other, more faith-based people. Aster — What does it mean? Confused,he looked to religion to explain the experience, and found that by reading the Bible, he was able to say that he connected with God somehow. However, he did not look for explanations outside of religious books, for instance, nothing at all about psychology or medicine or philosophy.
Does this make more sense? It could be a made-up story, it could be an exaggeration, it could be a later edit with an agenda, etc. BoBo — A lot of what I said to Aster would also apply to your question. Science looks and evaluates evidence. Personally, I believe in the Bible and what God said on this matter. To the scientist, knowing what is true is paramount. Many of the religious think they already have the truth, so keeping their belief is more important than knowing what is really true.
Well, I was editing my question and hit the answer button, my original version came up. I spent 35 minutes on it.
Oh well laureth , it is late. Will come back tomorrow and finish it. My anwser is in cyberspace. Not all theist oppose scientific research or hold orthodox religious views. If I oppose something like a scientific theory I usually have a good reason for it, not my religious beliefs. There are many disagreements within many fields of science to begin with. Take nutrition for one, on one side you have a group telling you to avoid red meat and consume more whole grains and fiber.
On the other end you have a group telling you protein from meat is very healthy, most animal fats are healthy while whole grains and high fiber are not healthy. Which one do you believe? I could go on and on about many other issues as well. I do find that at times I do agree with the minority scientific views on many topics or theories. Science should try to seek the truth, not be dogmatic. Jabe73 exactly what is meant by scientific research on Christianity or religious views?
I only have my life experiences. My life experiences is my laborabory. As crisw noted, his mind is already made up,. The only evidence for what he believes is his Book and the emotions it stirs in him. He is quite right that you are not a scientists yourself at least I presume this is true and you are drawing things out of books as well.
But the books you are reading present facts that need not be taken on faith. They can be tested to see if they are true. And because the facts presented in good books on science can be tested and falsified, they are part of the information storehouse of the reality based community as opposed to the information believed by the faith based community.
The scientific method sets out to disprove. Religion never proves or disproves anything at all. Does that sound familiar? Yet you invariably ascribe negative intent to their efforts. I was under the impression that this is a particularly abhorrent practice to many of you. I believe that the scientific method is a valuable tool, used ethically, for scientific principles to be discovered, and appreciate the efforts of those who responsibly provide this valuable information to those who are not so able to gain these insights and are eager to learn.
That being said, I also appreciate some non-scientific research when it gives me food for thought and helps me to determine what I believe. While done differently, it can also enlighten. Is that not what we all wish to attain? There is nothing negative about disproving anything. Disproof dispels myth, folklore, and lies.
That is a good thing. Just single frame clips, silly to take them out of context, considering them the entire picture.
If, and it seems that this is the case, we are discussing the judeo-christian god, the issue is very different. What if we have ignored prophets MLK seems like a good candidate? Why are the Books of Mormon disregarded? I have to disagree. Considering the lack of a unified theory of physics, the size of the perceivable universe, our very, very recent development of the tools necessary to get a real concept of the issues working in the microcosmic and macrocosmic scales, there is no real support to say that this model has been falsified.
Whether a scientist holds religious beliefs or not, scientific research cannot be applied to matters of faith. The Scientific Method and science itself, while versatile, is not a tool that can be properly applied to all areas of inquiry. Theologians may use deductive or inductive logic to prove their beliefs but this is not science.
Logic depends entirely on the prior assumptions and the arbitrary definitions of the terms used. Science depends on operationally defined terms that are consistent with consensually validated empirical observations. Hypothesis testing starts with the assumption that the effect on interest does not exist and then repeated observes and tests that Null Hypothesis until it must be rejected in the face of compelling empirical evidence that the alternate hypothesis, that the effect of interest exists and can be replicated by others.
Any scientific question must be one that allows for falsification. Read the work of Carl Popper for a better explanation of the importance of falsification in the process of science.
Anyone can do research on topics of interest by reading what others say about a subject and can arrive at inferences or conclusions of academic value without the use of the scientific method. Based on the assumptions accepted, the conclusion can be logically valid without being the product of science. If you want to do science, you must live with the constraints imposed by that method on what you can study and what you can say about that which you study.
These constraints make science a fairly sharp instrument, when applied with diligence and when subjected to the bright and harsh light of peer review. Meaning "scientific inquiry" is first attested Phrase research and development is recorded from What is the difference between descriptive research and experiment research design? Explore associations between variables. Speculative and typically non-directional.
Structured data collected from samples of respondents and sometimes secondary data. Experimental variable manipulation and variable controls. Surveys, including mail, telephone and personal interviews, and secondary data. Field and Laboratory Experiments. What are the What is the difference between research and survey? Research - diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.
What is the difference between a scientist and a researcher? Scientist is a "person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences" whereas a, Researcher is "defined as human activity based on intellectual application in the investigation of matter". What is the difference between scientist and a researcher? A scientist is usually expected to come up with answers and to generate new knowledge while a researcher might settle for compiling and collecting knowledge that's already out there.
The line between them is fairly blurry though. What is the difference between theory and research? Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, with an open mind, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories. Difference between formal research and informal research?
Formal research is controlled, objective, and systematic gathering of data. The researcher carefully defines the things under study and what will and won't be studied. It is systematic in that we carefully follow prescribed rules in gathering and assessing data. It is controlled in that we carefully define, gather, and evaluate the data according to prescribed rules that can be reviewed for error. The formal method provides a description based upon agreed upon units that can be measured and assessed for reliability, whereas the informal method describes the data based on the intuition of the researcher.
Can be measured reliably. Can't be measured reliably. Validity can be measured. Is deductively interpreted Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion drawn from a set of premises contains no more information than the premises taken collectively.
Is inductively interpreted an educated guess a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true. What is the difference between research design to research method?
What are the differences between action research and experimental research? In "Action Research" the researcher is part of the process under investigation; in "Experimental Research" the researcher tries not to influence the process.
What is the difference between research proposal and research report? A Research proposal is the outline of proposed research which isgoing to be conducted, but the Research Report is detailedinformation about already conducted research.
Difference between research and investigation? Statistics play an important role in research while logic and intelligence play a vital role in Investigation.
What is the difference between search and research? Search means a new way of find out a new thing. Research is a detailed study of a subject, especially in order todiscover new information or reach a new understanding. What are the differences between general research and educational research? General research can be gathered from random people of the public whereas educational research is taken from only the fully trusted experts who do research. What are difference between scientific research and non scientific research?
Scientific research refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge or correcting and integrating previous knowledge consist of collection of data through observation and experimentation and formulation and testing of hypothesis. Non scientific research is investigating about human society and of individual relationships in and to society. It consist of data through observation and presume relations among natural phenomena.
What is the difference between research and evaluation? The difference between research and evaluation is that research is were you find out about something and evaluation is were you say what you think of your work how you can improve it you usually evaluate your work once you Finnish something.
What is the difference between research and consultancy? Consultancy is the act of consulting some specific person that might give you the answer or the advice you seek. Research goes to many and different sources that put all together help you form your own idea of what you wanted to know. What is the difference between research and analysis? Analysis is a sum of verifying and validating or moreover you can say examining facts whereas Research means to discover something out of nothing.
What is the difference between scientific method and research? What is the difference between research purpose and research objective? The questions could be manywhile the purpose could just be a sentence that explains theoutcome of your reseach. What is the differences between research paper and research report?
A term paper is a research paper written by students over an academic term or semester which accounts for a large amount of a grade and makes up much of the course. Term papers are generally intended to describe an event, a concept, or argue a point. Or a formal written report that includes research findings and a student's own ideas.
A book-length presentation of the best of EPA's research findings. Or a research report is the compilation of findings from a piece of research. These findings are normally presented in the form of a report or a PowerPoint document. Research paper is info you dont pass in. Report is just existing data arranged in readable and useful manner while research states something new or any conclusion from data. Research is looking for information. Report is writing it up.
Difference between search and research? Research is a detailed study of a subject, especially inorder to discover new information or reach a new understanding. What are the Difference between research and survey?
Difference between a research question and a research questionnaire? A questionnaire has a series of questions. A question in aquestionnaire is used to express a request for information. What is the difference between a research question and a research objective?
What is the difference between applied research and basic research. What are differences between action research and fundamental research? Fundamental research is self educating on the basic parameters and influence on the current situation.
Action research is interpretation for the sole purpose of taking action, for example a specific purchase. What is the difference between planning and research? Account planner always works based on a previous research, like it's name, he or she develops a work plan according with the result of the research. What is the difference between research design and research method?
Research design is a blueprint or panning for research work and research method is an action or tool to make the plan success,. What is the difference between research note and research article? Hi i just wanted to put something in. But my name is Nat.! What is the differences between scientific research and common sense? Scientific research is based on the idea of developing a reliable way to learn about how the world works. Sometimes things people consider to be "common sense" truth prove to be false when studied scientifically.
Sometimes scientists study their topic in such deep detail that their research seems silly by commonsense standards. Difference between research paper and research article? Research can be said as activity which is specified muchsignificance in scholastics. Be that as it may, research papers arenot only these task papers composed by understudies as thosecomposed by scholars and researchers and also published indifferent journals are additionally alluded to as research papers.
Nonscientific research is acquiring knowledge and truths about the world using techniques that do not follow the scientific method. For instance, Plato was a large proponent of some of these, and.
Central to the idea of scientific research is the ability to replicate or falsify. Anything that does not allow you to do these things would be considered unscientific. An example of falsification would be if you ran a survey and found out that
Scientific research refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge or correcting and integrating previous knowledge consist of collection of data through observation and experimentation and formulation and testing of hypothesis. A scientific research is always able to back its findings, while a non-scientific research is whatever someone found on the internet to back his own claims, without any proof whatsoever.
For the record, I understand the difference between scientific and non-scientific research. What I’m looking for is how to describe that “visions of God that appeared in my head and which are confirmed with Bible reading” are not the same kind of research as a double-blind, peer reviewed study to someone who thinks that both are equally. Definition of non-scientific - not involving or relating to science or scientific methods.