|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total) |
| |
Contrarian | |
Total: 894,046 Year: 5,158/6,534 Month: 1/577 Week: 69/135 Day: 1/8 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
When I say logic is God Straggler (as defined in my argument) we must remember that in the original Greek, the terms John used for the english term 'Word', was the term 'logos'.
You see? The Word (the spoken word) is assumed to be logical. And it better be, or else I could just say, ' sdofh oasdhif ojhewt oeihff gfjfo iewhdfg'. So it's a good translation in English, but it misses the historical context when the logical nature of the spoken word was not so taken for granted. Today there are post-modernists who tell us that words don't mean anything.... and they use words to tell us that :laugh: But the power behind the spoken word is the logical nature of thought. It's the logic that has the power. Are you with me at least in theory? Even if you don't believe it? The term in the original Greek for 'word' is 'logos'. It is one of several terms in the greek that mean 'word' in English. But this particular one, 'logos' implies 'reason' and rationality. So when we read John's Gospel, we must see it in context to make it intelligible. So let's do an excersize just for context's sake. Perhaps it will make more sense. John 1:1 In the beginning was the [logic], and the [logic] was with God, and the logic was God. 2 He (logic) was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him (logic) all things were made; without [logic] nothing was made that has been made. 4 In [logic] was life, and that life was the light of men. inserted note: Without logic, we are in darkness spiritually (or intellectually). That's why it is light (in the intelligible sense, not the physical) 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The [logic] became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Here is the original to put into context: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=john+1§ion=2&version=niv&new=1&oq=in+the+beginning+was+the+word Naturally, I reccomend you read the whole chapter. In case it is not obvious, John is talking about Jesus. Speaking for myself, it is this gospel that helped me put it all together. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
It now feels a bit like you are doing the thread based equivalent of grabbing me by the lapels and yelling "Don't you see!! Don't you see!! Why don't you see?!!"
You have presented your argument. I am going to explore it piece by piece in terms of practical examples. Simply restating your argument in summarised form or asking me questions regarding my position as you assume it to be will not aid this process. I am beginning to see a fundamental flaw in your argument. I am confident that this will be revealed through questioning
OK. Understood. The penny has dropped. Finally. By your definition of science there are conclusions possible that are not available to conventional science. Is this statement correct? (just yes or no – no need to explain why at this point if the answer is yes) Intelligent design attributed to a non-material source (e.g. God) is one of these conclusions Is this statement correct? (just yes or no – no need to explain why if he answer is yes) As a conclusion that is available to your definition of science but unavailable to methodological naturalism ID attributed to a non-material source is a good example with which to analyse your definition of science in order to see where the main differences lie between the two Do you agree with this? (just yes or no – no need to explain the differences at this point if the answer is yes) I asked earlier -
Taking ID attributed to a non-material source as our example scientific conclusion could you complete/amend the following Conclusion = Life intelligently designed by a non-material designer One final question. By your redefinition of science are any other conclusions available that are not available to methodological naturalism? Or is ID the only one? No need for mass detail just a one sentance example will suffice. This is a side question to the main considerations above. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I am richly enjoying the fact that you are testing my philosophical construct by applying the law of contradiction. Do you agree then, that philosophical coherence is necessary? (yes or no, no need to explain why at the moment)
It's a marvelous twist of fate. You don't have to answer. I'll answer your yes or no questions first. Straggler:
Yes...
Yes... Stragglers restructured question:
No. We cannot presuppose 'scientifically', that the designer is 'non-material' (I personally believe so). Scientifically, all we can do... is point to the empirical evidence that quaternary digital code (DNA) in every biological cell has an analogy in the binary digital code produced by human intelligence. There is no natural or purely material (non-intelligent) source or law, that is capable of producing such complex structures that we know of empirically. (some personally believe that a material explanation exists) Conclusion = Life intelligently designed (designer unknown) Evidence = Empirical evidence in the form of the appearance of design in nature; specifically the quaternary digital code of DNA. Elements compared to draw conclusion = Digital information. Method of testing validity of conclusion = Law of contradiction. Evidence that would refute conclusion = Discovery of any natural process that can produce digital information on a material medium. Further prediction that would validate conclusion = The discovery of other uses for DNA such as gene expression timing, that are currently thought to be junk strands of DNA under the current convention. http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html Straggler:
I don't know. Let me ask you a question Straggler. I answered yes or no to three of your questions straggler... so a simple yes or no to this one will suffice. Do you think that finding a contradiction in my methodology will prove that my thesis or arguments are unscientific?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
Thankyou. Your thinking is much clearer to me now.
No. Any actual contradiction would just show it to be internally inconsistent. Consider the following (including posts to come) as a sort of pseudo Socratic discourse in which I will try and show what these reasons are by asking you questions which you just need to answer consistently in line with your thinking. 1) Question - Is the aim of science to render the most reliable conclusions regarding the natural world? (no need to go into how it might do this) 2) Question - Any definition of science must describe how reliable scientific conclusions are made. It must do this standing on it's own too feet and not just in relation to a rival definition of science. Do you agree? 3) Question - Based on any single given set of empirical evidence can there be more than one logically valid scientific theory? Can valid rival scientific theories producing opposing conclusions regarding the workings of nature exist according to your definition of science? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : Formatting and some minor rewording
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Hold on Straggler... Before I face the next inquisition, let's examine you for a moment.
Was there an actual contradiction given by me in the last reply? As far as I know, my answers were both internally consistent, and consistent with the external empirical evidence. Can you explain what was unscientific (contradictory) about my answers to your last series of questions? Also, can you tell me the difference in mass between a CD Rom disk that is empty vs. a CD Rom disk that is filled to capacity with digital information? Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Answer this one and those in the previous post, and we can proceed.
Straggler:
How do you define the term nature? You may find this list of 8 different definitions helpful: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
Not that I can see.
I agree.
Nothing was contradictory to my knowledge. The reasons for your whole methodology and definition of science being intrinisically and fundamentally flawed have nothing to do with internal contradictions.
One contains information and the other does not is, I suspect, the answer you are looking for. Nor is it one I fundamentally disagree with. However this has nothing to do with why your reasoning is flawed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
Again you are barking up completely the wrong tree. I very much doubt that the definition of nature is going to be the difference between us. I will assume that your answer to the more general question - "Is the aim of science to render the most reliable conclusions" Is "yes". If you try and second guess my arguments at every turn this discourse will take forever. As such I will write up a final and conclusive refutation and post it here for your comment as soon as I have time. Watch this space.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
That is incorrect. I asked what the difference in mass is. Let me give you a different example... You have two Newspapers. Both of them contain equal ammounts of lettering. On the first one, the lettering is random in it's distribution. On the second, the lettering is ordered into intelligible English sentences. What is the difference in mass between a paper with no information content, and one full of information content? Quantify for me, in material terms, what was added or subtracted in either example. I'll help you... the answer is zero. Their is no material difference. The only difference is the order of the material. And that is because information is a massless quantity. It is neither reducible to matter or energy. I am showing you, scientifically, that there are non-material entities in this universe. And it relates to my question about nature, which I resubmit to you next. Do you dispute anything in this post?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Don't assume anything yet... Just answer the question. The term nature is vague. What is it you mean? I even provided you a link giving 8 options: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature Why can't you just be honest? I'll tell you which definition I use for nature... and then you can tell me if our definitions are the same. Let's stop presuming things here and leading the witness. When I say nature, I am referring to the external material or empirical world of matter and energy. So I would go with definition 6: the external world in its entirety The point is, we must make a distinction between the external material world, and the internal non-material world. If as you say, there only exists the 'empirical world' (and it must be a coherent science), and there are no 'non-material entities' that are knowable scientifically; then, how can 'internal consistency' be irrelevant to science (as you're even now formulating an argument to show), since by your definition, it is the empirical world? Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Conclusion = Non material entities exist.
Evidence = The information is not present in the form of energy or material, but the pattern on the material medium. Elements compared to draw conclusion = CD, Newspaper, Hyroglyphics, any written language, and any spoken language. Method of testing validity of conclusion = Law of contradiction. Evidence that would refute conclusion = The discovery of empirical quantity or number of information in the fleshly (empirical) mind of a human being, or the information present in writing. Straggler:
Yes... Illogical information in the mind of a human being (spread to other human beings through language and writing), would be in contrast to the empirical order, and would result in contradiction between neighbors, family, and friends; which would manifest itself into the empirical order by chaos, violence, and bloodshed. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
Dude there is no need to get antagonistic here. I will write the refutation to your argument today if at all possible. I want it to be clear and to cover everything that needs to be covered. That will take time and at the moment I have a job and a two year old son who wants to bash my computer keyboard and play with my phone to contend with.
I have no problem with you personally I just think that your argument is wrong. Let's not get silly about it. It has nothing to do with defining nature but -
If that makes you happy I will go along with that definition. The definition of nature in this context has little bearing on my refutation.
Who is doing the presuming? My argument has nothing to do with internal consistency. This is but a side issue that I do not consider particularly important in this context. A mathematical proof that proves that 1+1=1 is just plain wrong. It is not 'unscientfic. Your definition of science is however is 'unscientific'. In terms of achieving reliable conclusions it fails. It has nothing to do with consistency. If you want to second guess my argument you can start by thinking about how other philosophies of science have considered seemingly equally valid competing theories based on identical evidence and what the implications of this are for what we CAN and CANNOT know(this has less to do with what is material and what is not and is more about our lack of omniscience). Think about it and I am sure you will see the flaw in your own argument.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Straggler:
I'm looking forward to it... No antagonism here friend. I want us to be rigorously scientific, and make sure we are thinking critically. Put feelings aside, for I am not being antogonistic. I am being careful, because as Samuel Taylor Coleridge said, "...But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!" I have three kids btw, 2, 4, and 6 years old... so I understand the struggles. But it's a noble struggle ;).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 242 days) Posts: 10332 From: London England Joined: |
Rob I suggest you take your time and read this in it's entirety before commenting. For both our sakes. Don't get too caught up with the initial part of the refutation (this is the least of your problems;)) Also do bear in mind that I am attacking your argument and not you :)
ROB’S ARGUMENT (empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(reliable scientific conclusions) Therefore as long as conclusions are based on sound logic and the evidence available they are valid regardless of the nature of the conclusions drawn. All logically valid conclusions are permitted whether they result in directly testable material conclusions or not. STRAGGLER'S POSITION LAW OF CONTRADICTION – THE PROBLEM BEGINS (empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(reliable scientific conclusions) If the above methodology is applied to produce conclusion A and conclusion B from the same set of empirical evidence (where A and B are mutually exclusive ) what happens? ROB IS RIGHT!!! - THE SPECIAL CASE (Complete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(wholly reliable scientific conclusion) Then the issue of rival theories becomes moot. OMNISCIENCE REQUIRED - THE PROBLEMS GET WORSE (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions) Given that we cannot ever know if we have all the required evidence and given that our aim is to to make reliable scientific conclusions any method that we apply to draw conclusions MUST assume that the evidence available is insufficient. Thus Rob's definition of science irretrievably falls apart at the seams to all practical intents and purposes. REAL SCIENCE - THE WAY FORWARDS (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(hypothesis) A hypothesis is NOT a conclusion as such. It is something which needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe in order to be validated or refuted. That is the key difference. 1) As applied to nature a hypothesis based approach can, in my view, be encapsulated thus - "Any fool can make a theory fit the facts BUT only those closest to the truth can hope to find that the facts fit the theory". In other words constructing theories that comply with existing evidence is easy to do and highly open to interpretation. However theories that reveal new aspects of nature which are then confirmed have passed the most difficult test it is possible to apply to any theory. The workings of nature will not obey our theories no matter how much we may wish it!! Hence prediction as the gold standard of evaluation in terms assessing theories and hypotheses. 2) A hypothesis based approach is necessarily tentative. Hypotheses are refuted or verified but never proven. By building our hypotheses on the foundations of evidence revealed by previously tested and verified hypotheses we can build up a body of knowledge of which we can have a high degree of certainty. With enough evidence, enough verification and enough corroboration from other interrelated scientific disciplines employing the same exacting tests against other aspects of nature we can even reach the point where we consider our theories to be factual descriptions of the world to all practical intents and purposes. Despite this we must always recognise that the evidence on which all of this is based must be assumed to be incomplete and thus our theories to be tentative to some degree at least. A hypothesis based approach is the practical means by which we can make the MOST reliable conclusions whilst recognising that the evidence available to us must always be considered incomplete and open to poor intepretation. THE RETURN OF METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(hypothesis) to the natural world what outcomes are possible? As previously stated a hypothesis is not a conclusion in itself. A hypothesis needs to be tested against that which it purports to describe. "Supernatural" conclusions cannot be empirically tested. Without such tests available supernatural conclusions cannot ever meet the requirement of science that they be rendered reliable. Therefore supernatural conclusions are unscientific and have no place in science. CONCLUSION So is 'Methodological Naturalism' a philosophical position? That was the accusation made by Rob in his thesis. Rob's thesis has been shown to be both logically invalid and inadequate in any practical sense. His methodologies have been found wanting, his arguments dissected and his conclusions utterly and totally refuted. Methodological naturalism lives on :) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : Loads of typos and some reformatting + the odd change of wording. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 5122 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Straggler, where did you go?
I am not going to anwser all of these ridiculous assertions. You're reasoning is fine concerning the position you've torn to bits. The problem is that you're destroying a straw man. You have not accurately portrayed my position. Therefore you have not refuted it. You did a nice job however of refuting the strawman... :rolleyes:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022