|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It should answer all of your questions regarding if we should give Faith's personal "philosophy of science" equal weight to that of thousands of professional scientists. You seem to have given a tight synopsis: "Science is whatever the scientists say it is" Oh dear..!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
A response to one of your pieces of evidence regarding faiths behaviour. I'm sure I've heard Faith give it this, that and the other way. And that more than once. It maybe the root of the problem and not hers alone but something which affects both sides.
http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Holy Moly! 9686 posts in 19 months.
I did a survey some months back and figured there were about 90,000 posts submitted per annum. With you doing about 6100 per year and me doing about 3600 that makes 9700 posts per year between the two of us. Thats nearly 11% of the total. Typically we'd generate at least a post per post in response. Often more which cannot be responded to. Say 1.2 posts reply per post of ours. Thats 21,000 odd posts. Nearly 24% of the total! EvC needs life blood and we're a not insignificant part of it. Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy. Power to the people!! Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science. Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day. Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology? Deciding that an Enlightement-inspired backdrop is a preferable one is your entitlement. Deciding it is not is an entitlement too. You pays your money and you choses your philosophy/belief
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Tell you what. If your axed I'll retire in sympathy.
Me too. We got ourselves an highly unlikely convoy I'm all for improving EvC even if it means some of the tosh I throw up from time to time is prevented. But let the fine tuning apply across the board. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percys point above is a good one. And for me too. Why not pick and chose a bit. Certainly poorly disguised posts aimed at needling and ridicule only only aren't worth the effort. Throwing pearls to swine eventually means running out of pearls and flinging muck
(no offence to anybody - just invoking a biblical principle)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ? The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit. Faith dismissed the assertion and rightfully so. One can apply scientific method to find out how Goddidit. The OP was enlightenment philosophy and that is all. Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit. But the dismisser is simply assuming his philosophy is correct. He does as she does in other words. I am not speaking about all her posting - just that narrow point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If you read it, it held that holding beliefs as unquestionable dogma was anti-scientific. I agree. Of course you do. You hold to an Enlightment philosophy of science. Science is completely open-ended. Nothing is assumed to be before it is shown to empirically be. Bottom up science as opposed to the top down science of a believer. Both are based on a philosopy - and about as polar opposite as they can be - as is reflected here at EvC. The founding fathers of science were totally convinced that God existed. They didn't have it in their day but any science that claimed to support the notion of a perpetual universe would have been rejected because of an a priori belief in a Creator God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
So fine, you count astrology, alchemy, Flat Earth beleifs and all the rest as science becasue your "philosphy" allows ANY dogmatically held belief to be counted as science. I'll stick with a definition that reflects how thee word is actually used, instead of one invented to prop up your position. The founding fathers developed the scientific method in order to leave behind the disorder involved with the likes of alchemy. Thus was born chemistry for instance. Creationists are not entitled to "the flood happened and me saying so means it is scientific" Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence. The OP in question said they were not allowed to do this. Creation science cannot be - because of the starting principle. I suspect I'll get a response that will talk all about how creationists have not managed to assemble the science in a scientific way. Feel free to do so - but this is not about that. This is about whether a belief Goddidit preclude doing science. Faith rejected Stragglers assertion. As do I.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
You can't just declare that your facts are facts that can't be disputed or discussed, not if you're doing science Is Faith permitted to state her belief that the flood happened in fact and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
But that has absolutely NOTHING to with the thread or topic. I am picking up a post earlier which Percy says is an example of Faith doing as Faith shouldn't and am arguing that this is not evidence of wrong doing - given that she was entitled to reject the assertion out of hand. Percy put up the evidence. Can I not challenge it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Faith can state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way. How Faith states it isn't the issue. If she read it on the back of a cornflake packet it would simply be her motivation, her philosophy, her belief. We all have one of those. What matters is the case made based on intepretation of the evidence. The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief. The common denominator on which we might agree hasn't changed from the time it began: the principles are simple and agree upon. I repeat (in order to prevent potential side tracking) that: it matters not whether or not Creos have managed to do this science or not. The principles apply to creo and evo and every other philosophy/ belief under the sun. There is a single watering hole at which we all drink. If we can agree on what that is then the science can begin and all this rubbish about "my belief vs your philosophy can cease". Much of what Faith has had to involve herself in involves rebutting the assumption of a philosophy If we manage to get that far then a proof text of the position of EvC from both sides of the divide can be established and whenever a newcomer decides to plough that old ground all can refer them to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If ever there were a clear cut case of an itch being scratched then this must rank right up there. You have been remarkably silent on this thread now that I think of it. Beavering away perfecting this gem no doubt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024