Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Education and Creation/Evolution ⇒

An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5174 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 32 of 91 (209110)
05-17-2005 5:25 PM 		Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
05-17-2005 3:26 AM

Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Limbo writes:
​
The big bang, the formation of the Earth, and of course, abiogenesis and then ToE. Its a package deal...no designer allowed...and the name of the package is ??? Secularism? Naturalism? Atheism? Darwinism?
​
Whoever taught you this crap should be awarded an honorary PhD in brainwashing.
​
You want to put a label on all of science as some sort of conspiracy against your religious beliefs ?
​
"..no designer allowed.."
​
It's more like "no designer needed - please apply to the theology department".
​
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 04:26 PM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Limbo, posted 05-17-2005 3:26 AM Limbo has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 2:23 AM EZscience has not replied
  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5174 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 56 of 91 (209282)
05-18-2005 6:33 AM 		Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
05-18-2005 1:02 AM

Limbo writes:
​
How about an encyclopedia of ways to falsify it? Or how about you start a field of science whose job it is to falsify it?
​
You understand not the first thing about science.
It is ALL falsifiable by definition or it can't be considered science.
A theory/proposition/experiment is only accepted as 'science' if it is presented in a way that is testable, so as to yield results that could point in either of at least 2 possible directions: supporting the hypothesis, or not-supporting it.
ID doesn't get to play because it doesn't obey these rules.
​
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-18-2005 05:33 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 1:02 AM Limbo has not replied
  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5174 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 58 of 91 (209285)
05-18-2005 6:47 AM 		Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-18-2005 6:12 AM

Re: The Full Biology Curriculum
Limbo writes:
​
Does this method apply to all fields, such as historical sciences, or quantum theory?
​
Yes
​
Limbo writes:
​
Are there fields of science where the standard method doesnt apply?
​
No.
​
Limbo writes:
​
Wouldnt it be possible to use a different method for Origin sciences, one that doesnt rule out design a priori?
​
No.
​
Limbo writes:
​
naturalism is not a deduction from experimental observations but a defining philosophy, right?
​
Wrong. It is a 'methodology'.
​
Limbo writes:
​
Who knows how much has been excluded over the years from many different fields of science all in the name of the scientific method.
​
Only things like ID that, by virtue of their formulation, were never science to begin with.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-18-2005 6:12 AM Limbo has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ProfessorR, posted 05-18-2005 11:33 AM EZscience has replied
  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5174 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 67 of 91 (209353)
05-18-2005 11:58 AM 		Reply to: Message 66 by ProfessorR
05-18-2005 11:33 AM

Philosophy of Science
Yes, the word philosophy gets abused a lot.
Like when Limbo speaks of naturalism as a 'defining philosophy' for evolution. That's wrong.
Methodology defines science and evolutionary biology, not philosophy.
​
I think you *can* have a philosophy of science (Mayr's book on the philosophy of biology was inspiring to me) but it should be considered an external perspective on the discipline and its implications for other disciplines - not a defining principle of the discipline.
​
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-18-2005 10:59 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ProfessorR, posted 05-18-2005 11:33 AM ProfessorR has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024