[qs]DO YOU- Straggler, recognize the difference or not, when a creationist writes, "Evolution by a million years imples this..." and "Creation based on 6,000 years is looking for that..."
YES OR NO-qs
YES. I recognise the difference.
But inferring logical conclusions, whether rightly or wrongly, from a premise is in itself not science.
"Evolution by a million years implies this conclusion and here is the observational/experimental evidence that verifies/refutes said conclusion" would be getting closer (if somewhat simplified) to that which we call science.
In practise creationists treat evolution is wrong = creationism is right so with their predermined conclusions in tow the statements as you define them often get confused.
Well, are you questioning the logical need vs the use of logical thought itself? If the former you would need me to scan in the argument of Kant first, which I mentioned in this thread but have not provided, if the latter that is not my problem if you cant answer the question
Which is the former and which is the latter. There is only one question?
You do not need to ask the specious question about my personality for YOU to answer that!!!
You seem to be intentionally unintelligible to me. I apologise if that offends you but that is the way it seems to me.
What you need to see from me is the discussion by Kant applied to anagenesis. I can do this either in this thread or in the one undermy name. It will not happen today. Thank you for answering. As I just answered, I DO know what is missing. Thanks again.
Whichever thread you deem most suitable is fine. If it does directly relate to this discourse and is posted in another thread then a link to said post here would be perfectly adequate. In either case I will read it and do my best to comprehend it if youmake it know to me.
It may if I fullfill my answer to your first question. That will come later but given that Mick had you specify a difference of description vs prescription I think that no matter what it will NOT become a "contradiction" in logical terms. The descriptive result for prejudicial prejudgments is different is not the same as prescripting the determination. This assumes the reflexion is finished. It may not be. More later on this as well.
Mick's insistence on a differentiation between descriptive and prescriptive was indeed a necessary clarification of the XXXX as defined in the OP. The contradiction I speak of, I agree, may not be a logical one but more one of the practical application of science vs the idealised view of what science is.
In a very general sense I agree with you sans Mick's post that XXXXScience is predeterminative but then we would need a scientific establishment that really is open to the differing personal horizons and differing lengths of reflective judgment periods. I did not expereicne this. Creationism tends to extend this non-determinative quality.
If by this you mean that established science (i.e. "evolutionary science" in this case) can be equally prescriptive then I would say that whilst short term individual deire and wider established scientific and social momentum can be factors, the history of science shows us that factors such as these are but temporary obstacles to the increased veracity of scientific understanding.