Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 152 (238532)
08-30-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
08-30-2005 7:57 AM


Re: The "I don't know" of the Gaps
To reason that science hasn't found any evidence for God thus no weight should be given it as an explaination for the unknown is circular reasoning: science deals with the natural not the supernatural. It cannot use lack of natural evidence to comment on supernatural evidence.
It's not logically coherent for there to be a supernatural realm that can still affect or influence the natural one. If it can, then it was part of the natural realm all along. But that's not really the topic here, I guess.
There is no more reason to suppose Scientism is any better an explaination than Goddidit for stuff we don't know now yet.
Well, sure there is, if you accept the basic effecacy of induction. If you don't, which is an entirely reasonable position (since the only evidence for the validity of induction is inductive), you reject all of science altogether.
I mean, it's up to you. If induction is to be accepted as valid, and you're going to accept the findings of science which are inductive, then induction also informs us that scientific knowledge is likely going to expand, not contract, indefinately, out to the very limits of what can be known.
It 'achieves' this by raising "objective, empirical evidence" above all other means of knowing - without of course, giving anybody a reason why this should be taken to be the case.
I seem to recall giving you a reason, many months ago, in another thread. You had no answer but swore that you would give it much thought.
Now you appear confident enough to pose the question again, so either you figured it out and I missed it, or you're hoping no one will remember that you were unable to successfully challenge the superiority of empiricism.
I'm asking for Scientism adherents to put up empirical evidence as to why empiricism rules
Show me someone who rails about the evils of "scientism" and I'll show you someone who took a philosophy of science class when they should have taken a science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 7:57 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 8:58 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 152 (238637)
08-30-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by iano
08-30-2005 8:58 AM


So you'd agree that the statement "empiricism (or 'reason' for that matter) is the only way to know anything" is a philosophical statement. Like, it is not that is can be falsified or verified).
It could certainly be falsified; you would simply have to provide an alternate epistomology that's as good as or superior to empiricism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 8:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 86 of 152 (238662)
08-30-2005 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by iano
08-30-2005 3:59 PM


I am here to learn Crashfrog. So go ahead...
I will take the arguement back if you do too...
I'm sorry? I don't understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:59 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 5:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 152 (238887)
08-31-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by iano
08-31-2005 5:14 AM


If this can be falsified then it needs something to falsify it with..
Huh? Why would this be the case? You're the one who believes the statement is false, not me.
I don't understand what principle causes you to believe that I'm under some obligation to argue your position for you. The statement I made was falsifiable, I showed you how, but it's not false. You will not be able to meet the falsification criteria.
But that doesn't mean there is no criteria. I told you what it would be, after all. It's your job to try to meet it, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 5:14 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024