Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of science: What should it be?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 60 of 100 (322731)
06-17-2006 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
06-17-2006 9:27 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Yep, I found it. But I have to take my boys on a motorcycle ride, so I'll be back later with my thoughts...
Rob
It was this one... http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 06-17-2006 9:27 PM Percy has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 62 of 100 (323568)
06-19-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
06-18-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Rob writes:
To take the single line of science in the search for truth, would be to block out other necessary angles.
Frog Crashes:
If you say so, but honestly I'm not aware of any area where the basic idea of consensus observation wouldn't work. Maybe you have something in mind?
Yes! Nazi Germany? Joseph Mengala?
Frog Crashes:
And I put my trust in those who get results. The results of science are manifest. The results of wooly, spiritual thinking? Bupkis.
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Mengala got results...
And as to the results of wooly spiritual thinking:
Two examples of remarks made thoughtfully and with due respect from non-religious sources:
W.E.H. Lecky History of European Morals (vol. II. 9):, "It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists. This has, indeed, been the wellspring of whatever is best and purest in Christian life. Amid all the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft and persecution and fanaticism that have defaced the Church, it has preserved, in the character and example of its Founder, an enduring principle of regeneration."
To this we may add the testimony of the atheistic philosopher, John Stuart Mill from his essay on Theism, written shortly before his death (1873), and published, 1874, in Three Essays on Religion. (Am. ed., p. 253): "Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the character which Christianity has produced, by holding up in a divine person a standard of excellence and a model for imitation, is available even to the absolute unbeliever, and can never more be lost to humanity. For it is Christ rather than God whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is the God incarnate more than the God of the Jews, or of nature, who, being idealized, has taken so great and salutary a hold on the modem mind. And whatever else may be taken away from us by rational criticism, Christ is still left; a unique figure, not more unlike all his precursors than all his followers, even those who had the direct benefit of his personal teaching. It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, is not historical, and that we know not how much of what is admirable has been super-added by the tradition of his followers. The tradition of followers suffices to insert any number of marvels, and may have inserted all the miracles which he is reputed to have wrought. But who among his disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Paul, whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort; still less the early Christian writers, in whom nothing is more evident than that the good which was in them was all derived, as they always professed that it was derived, from the higher source."
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2006 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 06-19-2006 10:14 PM Rob has replied
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2006 11:36 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 67 of 100 (323629)
06-19-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ringo
06-19-2006 10:14 PM


Hitler was the ultimate example of wooly thinking.
Hey Cowboy! I don't like the way your lookin at me...
Actually, Hitler did what was perfectly natural and up to date scientifically at the time. Which is why the times standard is so dangerous. 'True' morality is 'timeless' because it is 'real' and 'absolute', but I digress...
Hitler and his ilk, took Nietzche's philosophy of the superman and combined it with Darwin's naturalistic theory of survival of the fittest (totally compatable sciences) and what evolved was the idea that man was nothing more than blood and soil. And if evolution is true, then I must agree with him... why not kill off the weaker and troublesome among us for the betterment of the greater good. It is a huge logical moral dilemma for the naturalist.
That is the danger of science in the hands of a Godless state...
As Viktor Frankl so personally saw from his perspective as a prisoner and survivor of the gas chambers and death camps of Germany
"The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazi liked to say, of "Blood and Soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
Ps.. true, eternal, timeless, absolute, real, perfect, righteous, Godly, and life are all synonomous terms... just as Christ, savior, redeemer, Jesus are synonomous.
If you don't believe me, just plug any of them into the following statements:
I am seeking ____ morality.
I am seeking ____ meaning.
I am seeking ____ understanding, wisdom etc...
Try plugging the word scientific into those statements. Science can give us none of those things, unless man is a mere thing, with no purpose other than to serve his own pleasure and ambition at his time of choosing; at which point in time therafter, he may change his mind...
What I offer here as a truth, will always be truth...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 06-19-2006 10:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 06-19-2006 11:26 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 79 by rgb, posted 06-28-2006 7:46 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 80 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-28-2006 10:01 PM Rob has replied
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 06-28-2006 11:10 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 68 of 100 (323633)
06-19-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
06-19-2006 11:12 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Because, if we work very hard and are very patient, we can get very, very, very close to the truth.
How will you ever know that that's true?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 11:12 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2006 11:24 PM Rob has replied
 Message 70 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 11:25 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 73 of 100 (323651)
06-19-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
06-19-2006 11:24 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Wrong theories don't get much work done.
We agree! Oh my God! What does that mean?
But they do waste an enormous amount of life... I.E Naturalism!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2006 11:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2006 11:48 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 74 of 100 (323654)
06-19-2006 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
06-19-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
We won't ever have perfect knowledge of anything, but we can know with a good degree of confidence when we are on the right track.
Confidence is your weakness...
Jesus said plainly, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'
And Schraf, it's not that that is not true, it is the most profoundly true thing you will ever hear. Stunning in it's boldness and impossibleness... UNLESS! that guy really was who He said He was.
And the only reason you can't accept the possibility is???
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 11:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 06-20-2006 8:04 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 76 of 100 (323656)
06-19-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
06-19-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Ontological vs methodological
Norman Borlaug used science to save 1.5 billion lives. That's "billion" with a "b." Your religion had absolutely no power to do the same. If not for science, they would have starved to death.
Don't be such a polly wog, I didn't say science is evil and not useful. It is not inherently bad, just as sex is not inherently bad. All things need the proper boundaries and we as men cannot posses the power to say what those boundaries are. (go ahead, take the bait)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2006 11:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AdminNosy, posted 06-19-2006 11:53 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 82 of 100 (327357)
06-28-2006 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kuresu
06-28-2006 11:10 PM


Lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 06-28-2006 11:10 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 83 of 100 (327358)
06-28-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kuresu
06-28-2006 11:10 PM


Can you give me an idea of what unnatural behavior would be as a scientific definition?
I think you'll find that killing is natural. Lust is natural. Envy is natural.
Selfishness is natural...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kuresu, posted 06-28-2006 11:10 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 85 of 100 (327364)
06-29-2006 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
06-28-2006 10:01 PM


Re: AHH NOT AGAIN
You cannot leave that our there like that without a response. it's simply unfair! If the moderators wish to hide this response and your post it is ok. But I simply must respond....
You are correct! Hitler was a public Christian, just as Saddam Hussein was (excuse me... is) a public Muslim.
Let's look at Stalin... A seminary student, but he rejected faith in the end. At least Stalin was consistent albeit consistently evil. His daughter Svetlana Stalin, in an interview with Malcolm Muggeridge, told of how her father died. Joseph Stalin suddenly sat up, shook his fist to the heavens, in a defiant gesture, and fell back into his bed and died.
I know this... the definition of science lacks the ability to address such things.
True science is not (in my opinion) material impericism, but metaphysical revelation.
Don't worry! I'm in no position to affect the convention. I am only one man.
I only attempt to influence individual members of the forum...
Rob
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to the off topic portions of this post or continue in that vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 06-28-2006 10:01 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by rgb, posted 06-29-2006 4:02 AM Rob has replied
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 06-29-2006 9:17 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 86 of 100 (327366)
06-29-2006 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
06-29-2006 12:06 AM


Re: Science = Ethics
Speaking of public Christians
ps. Dear purple dawn, jar is right; Aslan is not a tame lion. This should be of grave concern to you, as He is going to return. Please don't try to fight Him.
Couldn't help myself Phat...
OFF TOPIC - If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.
AdminPD
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Contents Off Topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 06-29-2006 12:06 AM jar has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 90 of 100 (327452)
06-29-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
06-29-2006 9:17 AM


Re: Empiricism versus Revelation
How would you find the acceleration of gravity using metaphysical revelation?
All of you are completely misunderstanding what I say...
I would not use metaphysical revelation to find such things. And does gravity accelerate, or does the object by way of gravity?
Empericists attempt to find out how the machine works.
Metaphysics is a search for why the machine is here...
I simply think the latter of the two is more important to understand...
Science is wonderful, but for too many people (perhaps, not you), it serves a purpose it cannot; to answer or deny the bigger existential questions...
Sorry for any confusion...
Rbo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 06-29-2006 9:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by rgb, posted 06-29-2006 12:56 PM Rob has replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 06-29-2006 1:43 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 91 of 100 (327453)
06-29-2006 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by rgb
06-29-2006 4:02 AM


Re: AHH NOT AGAIN
See 90

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by rgb, posted 06-29-2006 4:02 AM rgb has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 92 of 100 (327454)
06-29-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PurpleYouko
06-29-2006 9:51 AM


Re: AHH NOT AGAIN
My comment was directed twoard purple dawn/ admindPD... Not you...
see 90

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-29-2006 9:51 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-29-2006 10:46 AM Rob has replied
 Message 94 by AdminPD, posted 06-29-2006 11:27 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 97 of 100 (327583)
06-29-2006 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by PurpleYouko
06-29-2006 10:46 AM


Re: AHH NOT AGAIN
Funny you should say that since my answer was to RGB and not YOU.
Yes, that is funny...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PurpleYouko, posted 06-29-2006 10:46 AM PurpleYouko 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