|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
JRTjr01 writes: I am actually trying to get Ringo past the first hurdle of the ‘Scientific Method1’; that is, I’m trying to establish a ‘proper frame of reference’ so that we are not talking passed each other. What you're actually doing is stonewalling. I think you should engage the discussion, then handle any terminology or "frame of reference" issues as they come up.
Now, as I understand it, the scientific method goes something like this. 1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference.2. Determine the initial conditions. 3. Perform an experiment, or observe the phenomenon noting what takes place, and when and where. 4. Note the final conditions. 5. Form an hypothesis. 6. Test the hypothesis with further experiments and/or observations. {Taken from copies of transparencies use in the lecture series Biblical Paradoxesby Dr. Hugh Ross} You shouldn't trust information about science that comes from a religious source. You can find many satisfactory characterizations of the scientific method on the Internet, but here's my own version:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
JRTjr01 writes: I already explained how, in post # 609: JRTjr writes: we need to be able to communicate with understanding and not be bogged down with ‘you mean one thing’ and ‘I mean another’. This only leads to confusion. That's not an answer to Ringo's question. Yes, agreeing on terminology is important. No one is arguing with that. If you have a specific word or term that you think may be causing confusion then please just let us know. Ringo is asking you a different question. He's asking how you establish to your own satisfaction whether something is real or true. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
NoNukes writes: I don't think your characterization is correct. The scientific method completely avoids the question of whether our measurements, observations, and even our existence are real or fictitious. The assumption is that what we observe is real (absent questions of viewpoint and physical illusions) and that we are real. Ringo is actually asking what I believe is an unanswerable question. The question has been posed, "Is reality real or an illusion?" (If there was some original form the question took that is important to discussing this then just let me know.) JRTjr has an answer. Ringo is asking how he obtained that answer. For many people Ringo's request is rhetorical, meant only to point out that JRTjr's answer was not established by any valid method for obtaining knowledge and is just his opinion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
No they are not. As long as you and I know what the other means, we can communicate, no matter what any dictionary has to say about the subject. If you're using a dictionary definition and I say that definition isn't adequate, we need to come to some kind of agreement beyond the dictionary. ‘Dictionary definitions’ are just the foundation of communication. So Let's try again: How does a dictionary definition of "true" help you distinguish between a man in a Bigfoot suit and a real Bigfoot? Even if you understand the meaning of "true" to the greatest possible depth of human understanding, how does that help you distinguish a man in a Bigfoot suit from a real Bigfoot? What process would you use to decide if a Bigfoot report was real or bogus? What would you do after looking in the dictionary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2986 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Thank you for your comments; hope you’ll join the fray.
Percy writes: Ringo is asking how you establish to your own satisfaction whether something is real or true. Agreed, and to understand that, he must first understand how I define what ‘Real’/‘True’ are; would you not agree? I would not be pressing this issue with him, but, he has come up with some unorthodox definitions for words. Again, thank you for your comments,
JRTjr Edited by JRTjr01, : Correct accreditation :-0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
JRTjr01 writes: Agreed, and to understand that, he must first understand how I define what ‘Real’/‘True’ are; would you not agree? No. If you had a cogent explanation, you could provide your definitions and that explanation in a few paragraphs. If there were questions, you could clarify. I suspect clarity is the last thing you want. Why are you so coy? It makes one think there's nothing under your skirts but thick ankles."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2986 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you again,
JRTjr writes:
‘Dictionary definitions’ are just the foundation of communication. Ringo writes: No they are not. As long as you and I know what the other means, we can communicate, no matter what any dictionary has to say about the subject. If you're using a dictionary definition and I say that definition isn't adequate, we need to come to some kind of agreement beyond the dictionary. Great, we can at least agree that we have to be able to agree on definitions to communicate. However, since you are asking me how I tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit explain to me why I have to throughout the definitions I use?? Whether or not you think the definitions are adequate would have no bearing on how I decide what is, or is not, real. Second, the reason I am harping on these definitions is precisely because I don’t know what you mean. You make statements and then, when I point out the absurdity of what you said, you complain that you meant something else. God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2986 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Percy,
Thank you for your comments.
Percy writes: You shouldn't trust information about science that comes from a religious source. Why?; are you suggesting that just because the Scientist I am getting my information from is ‘religious’ his information is automatically wrong?? God Bless,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
JRTjr01 writes: Agreed, and to understand that, he must first understand how I define what ‘Real’/‘True’ are; would you not agree? I would not be pressing this issue with him, but, he has come up with some unorthodox definitions for words. I think Ringo is hoping that working with him on the Bigfoot example will help you both to a better understanding of each other's views. Explaining one's views by working through an example is often very effective. It might work better than exchanging word definitions. If you don't like the Bigfoot example then suggest another. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
JRTjr01 writes: Percy writes: You shouldn't trust information about science that comes from a religious source. Why?; are you suggesting that just because the Scientist I am getting my information from is ‘religious’ his information is automatically wrong?? No. I'm suggesting pretty much precisely what I said. Had you vetted that information you would have quickly discovered it was wrong. Any reaction to the correct description of the scientific method? Doesn't it look to you like a very effective method for determining what is true or real? Isn't it pretty much what everyone does, in a much less formal sort of way, when they're trying to figure something out? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
We're on an Internet discussion forum, aren't we? We're talking about communication, aren't we? The question isn't so much about how you convince yourself; it's about how you communicate your thoughts to others. However, since you are asking me how I tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit explain to me why I have to throughout the definitions I use?? Whether or not you think the definitions are adequate would have no bearing on how I decide what is, or is not, real. So again and again and again: How would you tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony? I had a teacher once who said that if you can't explain something to an eight-year-old you don't really understand it. So how would you explain to an eight-year-old how you would tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony?
JRTjr01 writes:
The problem is that when I TELL you what else I meant, you label everything I say as absurd. We can't communicate if you assume that everything you don't already know is absurd. You make statements and then, when I point out the absurdity of what you said, you complain that you meant something else. If you make an attempt to honestly answer the question that I keep asking, maybe you'll begin to understand what I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Pressie writes:
That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why? Hugh Ross' explanation of the scientific method is non-standard, but it's not "wrong". The two steps that he adds (1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference; 2. Determine the initial conditions) are normally included as part of doing an experiment and making observations. The scientific method can be thought of as a circular (or spiral) endeavor, with four major parts. It can start at any point in the circle/spiral; with observation, with making a hypothesis, with determining implications of a hypothesis, or with doing an experiment."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
While I of course can't be certain without access to the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series, from what I know about Hugh Ross it seems pretty likely that where says "frame of reference" he means Biblical versus non-Biblical. And that where he says "initial conditions" he means a 6000-year old Earth versus a 13.8 billion year old universe.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Ross is an old-earther. Although that hasn't stopped him making some bizarre claims based on his version of Biblical literalism
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024