|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: XXXX Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Huh? The field of anthropology is based on treating the Bible as a history text? Where did you go to school? But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Naturalistic science - If meant in the sense that ANY conclusions are theoretically possible BUT which is totally unable to comment (is effectively agnostic) about anything which cannot actually be tested physically. Then this is not XXXX science. It is just science. I was thinking more along these lines: Naturalistic science - If meant in the sense that ANY conclusions are theoretically possible BUT posits that anything that cannot be tested experimentally must not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Doddy Curumehtar writes: Naturalistic science - If meant in the sense that ANY conclusions are theoretically possible BUT posits that anything that cannot be tested experimentally must not exist. Let me say it another way this time. "Naturalistic science" is redundant. Science is, by definition, naturalistic. Referring to science as "naturalistic science" is as redundant as saying "grassy meadow", "spherical globe" or "evil Microsoft." Science *does not* posit that that which cannot be experimentally tested must not exist. But science can only posit theories about things that are testable. Science simply cannot comment about that which is untestable. Having nothing to say about something is definitely not the same thing as saying something doesn't exist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buzsaw writes: We know that there are naturalistic projects/studies such as archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al being done for the purpose of rendering support for and/or falsifying ID interpretation and other non-naturalist ideology. As near as I can make out, this sentence says that we know there are scientific efforts underway related to ID and "other non-naturalistic ideology." First, science is not an ideological activity. If your scientific conclusions are a function of your "ideology", then you're not doing science. Second, science is natural. There is no non-natural science. Science that isn't natural is not just another kind of science - it isn't science at all! If you're studying non-natural phenomena then you're not doing science. This has come up many times before, and I can only guess you just don't believe us when we give you the definition of science. You must believe we're just giving you a definition convenient to our viewpoint. It all comes down to the definition of natural. Science has a definition of natural. You cannot take science, change the definition of natural, and still call what you're doing science. In science, any phenomena is natural that is detectable in some way so that it can be studied. Anything detectable is natural, and anything undetectable is not natural. Keep in mind that there may be phenomena that our current science cannot detect that our future science will - those phenomena are natural, too. A couple centuries ago scientists couldn't detect radio waves from stars, and now they can. Stellar radio emissions didn't suddenly become natural. They were always natural, and our definition of natural did not change. What changed was that our ability to detect the natural improved. For this reason science has to be circumspect when speaking about things it cannot detect. When science cannot detect something, all it means is that science can make no comment. It definitely does not mean that something does not exist. But being unable to say that something does not exist is not at all the same thing as having evidence of something. Science has no evidence of God and therefore has no comment about God. That doesn't mean God exists. It also doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science simply has no comment. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot example might be useful here. Can science prove that there is no teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri (the nearest star after the sun)? The answer is no, of course not, science cannot prove that. Does this mean there *is* a teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri? No, of course not. And hopefully you're thinking, "Well, that's pretty silly, why is anyone postulating about teapots in orbit around distant stars? There could not possibly be any scientific evidence for something as tiny as a teapot at that distance, so why is this even coming up?" Good question. So now let's examine your concluding sentence:
If so, is this naturalistic activity doing science and are the IDist PHD science/physics/astronomy doctorates and others doing it as a profession scientists? There's no scientific evidence for anything like ID, so now is the time to ask the same question as about the celestial teapot: why are questions about ID, something for which there is no scientific evidence, even coming up? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What actually is 'creation science'? The belief that a Creator is responsible for natural law as opposed to a series of unguided anomalies.
What is 'Christian science'? Christian science literally has nothing to do with science. Its purely spiritual.
Islamic science? I've never heard of it. I have heard of Qur'an-based creationism though.
Hindu science? I've never heard of it.
Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'? Yes. Its referred to as "Secular Science." In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.
Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? 'Fascist science'? Sure, why not. We have polysci (political science). That has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Would 'socialist science', for example, necessarily conclude that we are all born equal? Would 'fascist science' necessarily conclude that there is a genetic elite of some sort? Probably. That's basically what eugenics, which is a branch of science, is all about. All one has to do is study science and attach a particular philosophical credo to it.
Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific? Its probably used to identify what it means.
Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms? (where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of) Not really since the half life of scientific fact is is an often tentative or tenuous one.
Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'. If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question If creationists say that evolutionary theory is a belief based on science? I'm certain they would agree that it is based on an inkling of science. The veracity of something doesn't make it science, the method does. So, yes, of course evolution attempts to use science in order to corroborate its claims. The rightness of it is the job of science to determine. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
why are questions about ID, something for which there is no scientific evidence, even coming up? Because a lot of IDist folks alleging themselves to be scientists, some of whom have physics PHD doctorates are doing archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al as a profession, sometimes for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying creationist IDis origins and other times for other purposes which they apply as supportive to IDist origins of natural things being observed. For example Chris Miller who does government geology for a profession applies some of his professional science data to argue for ID. Others such as ICR alleged scientists teach, do lab work, experiment and the rest of the list above including on site field work for the sole purpose of lending support to IDist origins et al. Am I correct in understanding your position to be that these creationist people such as some at ICR with doctorates in science and physics, calling themselves scientists are not scientists and the above described activities which they do in their profession is not doing science if those activities have any bearing on being supportive to the Biblical record or some other ID related ideology? I'm deliberately being as concise as possible in the way I word my questions so as to fully understand your position, which seems to boil down to there being no ID related science being done anywhere and that no matter how much scientific activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wepwawet Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 85 From: Texas Joined: |
Yes. Its referred to as "Secular Science." In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.
Why does your link go to a topic with the name "Secular Education" and not a topic called "Secular Science"? Is it just that no topic under the heading of "Secular Science" exists on Wikipedia? The dictionary definition of secular merely indicates that something is non-religious or non-spiritual in nature. Here:
sec·u·lar /skylr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sek-yuh-ler] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Secular Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com-adjective 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests. 2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music. 3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects. 4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular). 5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome. 6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages. -noun 7. a layperson. 8. one of the secular clergy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1250-1300; < ML séculris, LL saeculris worldly, temporal (opposed to eternal), L: of an age, equiv. to L saecul(um) long period of time + -ris -ar1; r. ME seculer < OF < L, as above] Your definition of secular appears nowhere. Science is secular by definition. Your definition deliberately twists it to try and make it sound like science avoids studying or belief in the supernatural out of some attempt to destroy religion. The reality is merely that science has nothing to say about the supernatural at all because the supernatural is invisible to scientific observation and methods.
Probably. That's basically what eugenics, which is a branch of science, is all about.
Eugenics is a branch of science? Do you say that only because it sounds vaguely scientific? Eugenics at best is a particular flavor of social philosophy...a belief if you will. It's got more in common with religion than it does with science. While eugenics has been presented under the banner of science, it is not scientific for the same reason that Creationism is not...eugenics starts with a known result (race X is superior to race Y) and seeks evidence to support that position rejecting any that does not. Remind you of anyone you know?
Not really since the half life of scientific fact is is an often tentative or tenuous one.
Any scientific position is tentative or it is not scientific. This has been explained before. Science makes absolutely no claim to holding the keys to eternal truth. Sure some folks may speak of science in terms of truth and fact but the philosophy of science holds all such positions as tenuous suppositions that are to be modified or overturned as our understanding increases. You've had all this explained to you before, do you not understand it or do you have a need to see science as something it is not? When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. - Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4601 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
For example Chris Miller who does government geology for a profession applies some of his professional science data to argue for ID. Do you have any links to his peer reviewed publications? I would be interested to read his work. Thanks in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'. If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question If creationists say that evolutionary theory is a belief based on science? I'm certain they would agree that it is based on an inkling of science. The veracity of something doesn't make it science, the method does. So, yes, of course evolution attempts to use science in order to corroborate its claims. The rightness of it is the job of science to determine. I believe the intent was "belief-based science," not a "belief based on science." The difference being, I believe, that a belief-based science is one which will only accept preconcieved ideas, in other words only reach certain conclusions which agree with its belief and not others. Is this what you believe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5754 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
I'm deliberately being as concise as possible in the way I word my questions so as to fully understand your position, which seems to boil down to there being no ID related science being done anywhere and that no matter how much scientific activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science. This is exactly what I want to know also. Let me add a question to this post. Is there any way to study the world using the Bible as possible source of knowledge which could be scientific? Sure there are plently of obviously biased people in the world who enter creation science with preconcieved notions. It seems all refutation of creation science in this thread is based on the way individuals have practiced creation science, though not neccessarily on the discipline itself. Although in practice creation science is biased and not true science, is there a way in which one could theoretically practice something like creation science and still have it be considered science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What is 'Christian science'?
Christian science literally has nothing to do with science. Its purely spiritual. quote: It rejects science in favor of non-science. You can call that "spiritual" or you can call it foolish, either way it is NOT science.
Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'? Yes. Its referred to as "Secular Science." In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order. Moving the goal posts again nem? Thesaurus search for secular:Putting in atheist brings up two entries, with "skeptic" used here: The point being that "atheist" and "secular" are so different in meaning that they are NOT synonyms -- as you attempted to use them OR you are moving the goal posts from one to the other. That last one is interesting ... an atheist clergy? By your usage anyway eh? OR your usage is just flat wrong. Again. Curious, I DON'T see "study or belief of anything of only natural order" in SECULAR but I DO see it in SCIENCE. Secular is part of the skeptic approach of science but it is not the all inclusive term - there are elements that science is skeptical of that are not religious: ufo's come to mind. Amd "skeptic science" IS science. If anything, "skeptic" protects you from voodoo science - whatever "voodoo" is involved eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added skeptic & voodoo science Edited by RAZD, : subtitle compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Buz,
You're still looking for some escape hatch in the definition of science by which efforts to provide scientific support for Bible-based beliefs can be considered science. Look at it this way. Say I'm a Nobel prize winning scientist and I'm in my kitchen cooking dinner. Am I doing science? No. Obviously, being a great scientist doesn't turn everything one does into science. Now say I, the Nobel prize winning scientist, am in my study writing a science paper supportive of ID. Am I doing science? To answer that question we first we have to answer a few other questions. Is ID an observable phenomena? In other words, is it something that we can see happening, or in some way make measurements of while it is happening, or can in some way detect that it has happened by way of evidence that the process of intelligent design has left behind? In other words, is this is a detectable phenomena? The answer is, of course, no, but this example makes clear a more important point: Whether I'm doing science has nothing to do with my credentials. Science has a definition, and I'm only doing science if I'm engaged in an activity consistent with that definition.
I'm deliberately being as concise as possible in the way I word my questions so as to fully understand your position, which seems to boil down to there being no ID related science being done anywhere and that no matter how much scientific activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science. ID isn't science because there is no evidence for the phenomena under study. This is no surprise, because ID is being offered to the world as science by the evangelical community, not by the scientific community. One of the stated goals of the organization most involved in promoting ID, the Discovery Institute, is the undermining of naturalism that is the foundation of all science. Why do they want to do this? Because of how obviously ID is not a detectable natural phenomena and therefore not science by the accepted definition. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Vacate writes: Buzsaw writes: For example Chris Miller who does government geology for a profession applies some of his professional science data to argue for ID. Do you have any links to his peer reviewed publications? I would be interested to read his work. Thanks in advance. Chris Miller is not a published research scientist. He's a government employed geologist who once gave a talk at Buzsaw's church. Buzsaw entered him into evidence once before in another thread, and he was thoroughly rebuked for trying to create the impression that Miller was an example of a mainstream scientist doing creationist/ID research. I can't even guess why Buzsaw has chosen to mention him again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
platypus writes: This is exactly what I want to know also. Let me add a question to this post. Is there any way to study the world using the Bible as possible source of knowledge which could be scientific? Anything in the natural world can serve as a source of evidence for natural phenomena. In the case of the Bible one has to consider the possibility that the stories of Genesis are not just myths from the beginnings of civilization but actual accounts of what happened. This possibility has been thoroughly investigated, primarily by geologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, and found to not be the case. The stories of creation in Genesis are unlikely in the extreme to be accurate accounts because not only is there no evidence supporting or consistent with them, all the available evidence strongly contradicts them. Scientists have also investigated the possibility that the star of Bethlehem was an actual astronomical event, but no support for this possibility has been identified. Those are the only Bible-based phenomena I'm aware of that have been investigated, but this isn't something I stay up on, and I'm sure there must be others.
Although in practice creation science is biased and not true science, is there a way in which one could theoretically practice something like creation science and still have it be considered science? This is not a restatement of the original question, but a different question altogether. The Bible *is* is potential source of evidence, but Creation science is the investigation of phenomena for which there is no evidence from the natural world, only from a religious holy book. The phenomena creationism purports to study was thoroughly debunked well over a century ago. I've got to say that I just don't understand this need that evangelicals have for scientific evidence for their religious beliefs. There's no scientific evidence for God, heaven, hell, angels or the devil, either, so why the big deal over the six day creation? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks Percy. I just wanted to know exactly what your position is so as not to miss-state/missrepresent it in the future.
So here's what I understand your position to be: 1. A lot of IDist folks alleging themselves to be scientists, some of whom have physics PHD doctorates who are doing archeology, fossil observation, data collection, photography, testing, math, physics et al as a profession, sometimes for the purpose of lending support to or falsifying creationist IDist origins and other times for other purposes which they apply as supportive to IDist origins of natural things being observed are not scientists as per the definition of science if those activities have any bearing on being supportive to the Biblical record or some other ID related ideology. 2. There is no ID related science being done anywhere and no matter how much research/study/observation activity with things in nature creationist IDists do for the purpose of supporting and/or falsifying IDist origins, their activity being conducted in the natural field of operation does not come under the definition of science. Correct me if any of the assumptions which I have deduced from your messages are incorrect. Thanks BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024