Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Breaking news: Not all scientists are athiest

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 5:23:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well, this is something I have been dealing with recently. Look, I am an atheists, but this notion that the flip side of religion is science, and science = atheism is such garbage that it is almost hard to know where to start when talking to people about it.

This is new, or newish anyway. I don't know if it is purpose driven, or just a natural reaction from the faithful. The results are clearly detrimental and a bit sad.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 5:33:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

I mean.... Where these things come to the surface are obvious, and understandable. It is going to be very hard to be a biologist if your faith has some requirement that you believe in YEC. It's not that there are no biologists that are able to reconcile the science with faith, but if you MUST hold to strict creationism it will be a huge case of cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 7:22:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well don't hold your breath waiting. This is what they call a 'straw man'.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 7:49:09 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 7:22:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well don't hold your breath waiting. This is what they call a 'straw man'.

Be honest. This is very real. Just two threads below this one starts with

"The widely accepted theory to disprove God is the theory of evolution."

On a poll the other day, I will track it down, the exact wording I will get wrong. The sentiment was EXACTLY this. All science and scientists are atheists with the intent to disprove a god.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:06:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 7:49:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 7:22:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well don't hold your breath waiting. This is what they call a 'straw man'.

Be honest. This is very real. Just two threads below this one starts with

"The widely accepted theory to disprove God is the theory of evolution."


And that's largely true, as a practical matter. But whether you agree with that or not, the statement does not say that you can't be both a scientist and religious.

On a poll the other day, I will track it down, the exact wording I will get wrong. The sentiment was EXACTLY this. All science and scientists are atheists with the intent to disprove a god.

Well, that gets pretty close, so I guess I better acknowledge that you may find someone who does believe you must choose between science and religion. But even the claim that all scientists are atheists does not establish that no scientist could be religious.

I regularly hear religious leaders telling their listeners that they don't have to abandon science. Everybody feels the pressure to be PC these days, that's why I say it's a straw man. Me, I take the position that I'll choose truth (as best I can), and leave it to others to categorize truth. I don't think truth is a contest (which is actually a very important claim), and certainly not a popularity contest.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:33:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

I mean.... Where these things come to the surface are obvious, and understandable. It is going to be very hard to be a biologist if your faith has some requirement that you believe in YEC. It's not that there are no biologists that are able to reconcile the science with faith, but if you MUST hold to strict creationism it will be a huge case of cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:09:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 8:06:53 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 7:49:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 7:22:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well don't hold your breath waiting. This is what they call a 'straw man'.

Be honest. This is very real. Just two threads below this one starts with

"The widely accepted theory to disprove God is the theory of evolution."


And that's largely true, as a practical matter. But whether you agree with that or not, the statement does not say that you can't be both a scientist and religious.

On a poll the other day, I will track it down, the exact wording I will get wrong. The sentiment was EXACTLY this. All science and scientists are atheists with the intent to disprove a god.

Well, that gets pretty close, so I guess I better acknowledge that you may find someone who does believe you must choose between science and religion. But even the claim that all scientists are atheists does not establish that no scientist could be religious.

I regularly hear religious leaders telling their listeners that they don't have to abandon science. Everybody feels the pressure to be PC these days, that's why I say it's a straw man. Me, I take the position that I'll choose truth (as best I can), and leave it to others to categorize truth. I don't think truth is a contest (which is actually a very important claim), and certainly not a popularity contest.

Let me see if I can dig up the poll. Frankly it was disappointing
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:45:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:33:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

I mean.... Where these things come to the surface are obvious, and understandable. It is going to be very hard to be a biologist if your faith has some requirement that you believe in YEC. It's not that there are no biologists that are able to reconcile the science with faith, but if you MUST hold to strict creationism it will be a huge case of cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

Let me break this apart if you don't mind and science wrong.
Has there even been a time when religion was right
Relating to how the natural world works? No. Science gets things wrong all the time, and when we find that we accept the flaw.

Is religion ever "right" in discussions of philosophy, sure. Has science ever been used in discussions it has no business in, like philosophy, sure. That is poor application.

I guess, if I take the question as I believe the question asked, I would say religion has been absolutely terrible when used to evaluate any question relating to any hard science.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 9:23:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 8:45:41 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Let me break this apart if you don't mind and science wrong.
Has there even been a time when religion was right
Relating to how the natural world works? No. Science gets things wrong all the time, and when we find that we accept the flaw.


So how about if you went to buy a car, and the salesman said: "This car breaks all the time, but the garage always gets it fixed". Would you buy that car?

And what is it that corrects the flaws, anyway? Surely not the science itself, since you've just admitted that they get things wrong all the time.

So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 9:23:22 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:45:41 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Let me break this apart if you don't mind and science wrong.
Has there even been a time when religion was right
Relating to how the natural world works? No. Science gets things wrong all the time, and when we find that we accept the flaw.


So how about if you went to buy a car, and the salesman said: "This car breaks all the time, but the garage always gets it fixed". Would you buy that car?

Its nice, but not very accurate. Each step is part of perfecting the knowledge. It would be like, buy this car, it is closer to unbreakable than the last one produced.

VS.

Buy this car. It is broken, and we make no effort to fix it - as a matter of fact, we have builtin rules saying we can't fix it.

And what is it that corrects the flaws, anyway? Surely not the science itself, since you've just admitted that they get things wrong all the time.

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.

So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?

Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion, but that is different that science having direct consequences on philosophy. Its cart before the horse sort of thing.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.


So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing. You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 9:54:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
So how about if you went to buy a car, and the salesman said: "This car breaks all the time, but the garage always gets it fixed". Would you buy that car?


Lets try the car thing in another way.

Newtonian physics is still very useful. Its like the old model that did not have anti-lock brakes. We needed a new guy to come along and figure out special relativity.

Calling Newton "wrong" is not really accurate but it sure breaks down badly when you drive real fast, right?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 11:00:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Science is generally associated with Atheism because there is a much higher amount of Atheists among academics/scientists than other groups

http://www.pewforum.org...
Meh!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 11:09:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between?
That perception is propagated mainly by those who equate religious faith with literal dogmatic adherence to Christian canon. Science has debunked a great deal of literal dogma, which they construe as an attack on faith, and the more paranoid construe it as having arisen as a conspiracy of deception by atheists, secularists, socialists, satanists, drug-users and sexual perverts (not my language) to undermine the rightful role of Christian literalism as the only standard for morality, law, education and social norm that can save the world from destruction (formerly by vice and sloth, then by godless Communists, but now by barbaric Muslims.)

Writing it out that way is laughable, and few actually will own the whole of that belief all at once... but that's the belief in summary when you piece it together.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 7:49:09 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 7:22:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 5:19:10 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Also, the sky is black at midnight and water is wet at room temperature.

So why then is there a perception that science and religion are something that a person has to choose between? Obviously not everyone believes this, I would like to hear from those who do.

Well don't hold your breath waiting. This is what they call a 'straw man'.

Be honest. This is very real. Just two threads below this one starts with

"The widely accepted theory to disprove God is the theory of evolution."

On a poll the other day, I will track it down, the exact wording I will get wrong. The sentiment was EXACTLY this. All science and scientists are atheists with the intent to disprove a god.

The nonsense opening sentence in the first thread you mention is exactly why I made this thread, as a matter of fact.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 3:30:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

No, but that's exactly the point. Just because one is right doesn't make the other wrong, unless one takes a literal interpretation as TBR mentioned (which few people actually do.)
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 3:44:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 3:30:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

No, but that's exactly the point. Just because one is right doesn't make the other wrong, unless one takes a literal interpretation as TBR mentioned (which few people actually do.)

I do. Literature generally should be taken literally. Of course, one must ask what the literature is actually trying to say, but if the Bible makes claims, they are either true or false. If life happened by chance, then God didn't create it. You have to pick one (or neither, I guess). I consider "life just happened" to be nonsense, and when you factor down the equation, that is precisely what evolution claims. So it's just another form of mysticism, the new pantheism, where nature is imbued with hidden magical powers.

So creation is the rational option here. If not the God of Genesis, then somebody else, but not nobody. Life is clearly a work of surpassing genius.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 3:44:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2016 3:30:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

No, but that's exactly the point. Just because one is right doesn't make the other wrong, unless one takes a literal interpretation as TBR mentioned (which few people actually do.)

I do. Literature generally should be taken literally. Of course, one must ask what the literature is actually trying to say, but if the Bible makes claims, they are either true or false. If life happened by chance, then God didn't create it. You have to pick one (or neither, I guess). I consider "life just happened" to be nonsense, and when you factor down the equation, that is precisely what evolution claims. So it's just another form of mysticism, the new pantheism, where nature is imbued with hidden magical powers.

So creation is the rational option here. If not the God of Genesis, then somebody else, but not nobody. Life is clearly a work of surpassing genius.

I don't know why life has to be seen as a surpassing work of genius. No more than the universe certainly.

I can understand your description new pantheism, but like pantheism you (many) simple want to add the mysticism. Why tack it on?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 8:03:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 5:46:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/19/2016 3:44:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2016 3:30:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

No, but that's exactly the point. Just because one is right doesn't make the other wrong, unless one takes a literal interpretation as TBR mentioned (which few people actually do.)

I do. Literature generally should be taken literally. Of course, one must ask what the literature is actually trying to say, but if the Bible makes claims, they are either true or false. If life happened by chance, then God didn't create it. You have to pick one (or neither, I guess). I consider "life just happened" to be nonsense, and when you factor down the equation, that is precisely what evolution claims. So it's just another form of mysticism, the new pantheism, where nature is imbued with hidden magical powers.

So creation is the rational option here. If not the God of Genesis, then somebody else, but not nobody. Life is clearly a work of surpassing genius.

I don't know why life has to be seen as a surpassing work of genius. No more than the universe certainly.


You don't see a difference between the surface of Mars and Paris?

I'm guess not even sure how to respond to a statement like that, really. I could try to be technical about how all of the observable universe is barren except for earth, but I honestly don't think your comment comes from reason, so it can't be addressed by reason.
This space for rent.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2016 8:19:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/19/2016 8:03:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2016 5:46:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/19/2016 3:44:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/19/2016 3:30:17 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:08:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Has there even been a time when religion was right and science wrong, in your opinion?

No, but that's exactly the point. Just because one is right doesn't make the other wrong, unless one takes a literal interpretation as TBR mentioned (which few people actually do.)

I do. Literature generally should be taken literally. Of course, one must ask what the literature is actually trying to say, but if the Bible makes claims, they are either true or false. If life happened by chance, then God didn't create it. You have to pick one (or neither, I guess). I consider "life just happened" to be nonsense, and when you factor down the equation, that is precisely what evolution claims. So it's just another form of mysticism, the new pantheism, where nature is imbued with hidden magical powers.

So creation is the rational option here. If not the God of Genesis, then somebody else, but not nobody. Life is clearly a work of surpassing genius.

I don't know why life has to be seen as a surpassing work of genius. No more than the universe certainly.


You don't see a difference between the surface of Mars and Paris?

I'm guess not even sure how to respond to a statement like that, really. I could try to be technical about how all of the observable universe is barren except for earth, but I honestly don't think your comment comes from reason, so it can't be addressed by reason.

This could just be seen as a difference of opinion, but no, I don't see life as some super incredible mystery "superior" in some way to the the universe it occupies.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:04:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.

How do you know what natural law is?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:18:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:04:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.

How do you know what natural law is?

Observation. Find me where something is OUTSIDE our understanding, we will look to figure it out using the tools at hand.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:04:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.

How do you know what natural law is?

Just get to your point. You know what natural law is, or you have no interest in talking honestly. I don't go around pretending that I don't understand what people are talking about when they say God.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:47:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:18:24 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:04:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.

How do you know what natural law is?

Observation. Find me where something is OUTSIDE our understanding, we will look to figure it out using the tools at hand.

Alright. Spiritual things are thought to be outside our understanding. You should be able to shoot down or prove that one.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:58:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:44:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:04:55 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/23/2016 3:06:11 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/23/2016 7:42:20 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:05:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:54:14 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 2/18/2016 9:42:43 PM, TBR wrote:
...

Sure is is "science" that fixes the flaws. I mean, seriously, who do YOU think carries theories forward, testing, finding flaws etc. It is as self-correcting as anything we have designed so far.


This is incoherent at best, and a belief in magic at worst.

Was on my phone. Point is, yea, science corrects its mistakes (more like perfects) where it has flaws. No magic necessary. Since science is itself lacking dogma, there simply is no place where the bad can not be replaced by the better.



So you see, science with no philosophic foundation is like a 5 year old playing with an iPad. The grandparents are really impressed that Johnny can use a computer, but can this kind of knowledge sustain computer use? No, of course it can't, and it's not clear what the future of modern science is, either.

Not at all. Science is a discipline. A tool. Philosophy is not part of what you are trying to do with science. Why try to mix them?


Yeah, a tool is used by somebody or something. Who or what is using said tool?

Science without philosophy is like sounds without language. I say politely but deliberately: You could not be more profoundly wrong about this.

That is assertion alone. To be so confidant of a statement like "sounds without language." only invites me to mock it when followed with "profoundly wrong".


Now, I could write an argument how science CAN be used constructively in a philosophical discussion,

I'm not so sure science is of any use in philosophy. Perhaps incidentally. So no, you're right, this is a cart before horse kind of thing.
We agree here.

You cannot do science unless you are first a philosopher. You must be clear about observation and assumption and interpretation and more before you can even begin intelligent science. Yes, a 5 year old may use an iPad, but he really has no idea what he's up to.
Bare assertion with no meaning. Anyone can explore some aspect of nature without having any reason to care how it fits into the context of philosophy.

How you decide the limitations and proper uses of science can only be based on your chosen philosophy. You cannot use science to define the limitations of science before you have defined science. That's why you hold the position science is limited for the most part to knowledge outside philosophy, and only within the natural world. If your philosophy accepted the possibility of Psi, for example, you may be willing to use science to determine the nature of Psi. But if your philosophy is that only the physical world exists, you would be likely dismissive of a scientific inquiry into Psi, especially one that turned up positive evidence.

By the very mechanics of scientific inquery we are bound to natural law. Anyone could study Psi if they liked, but would be looking for natural (by the nature of the tool) for natural resolutions.

How do you know what natural law is?

Just get to your point. You know what natural law is, or you have no interest in talking honestly. I don't go around pretending that I don't understand what people are talking about when they say God.

My point is that gravity and neutral subatomic particles, even single celled organisms and chemistry were once outside known natural law. The philosophy of scientists determines what scientists are willing to study. Even if they know about something (psycology, Psi, spirits, chiropracty, germ theory) their philosophy may preclude them from understanding something that does exist because they don't believe it exists.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.