Author
|
Topic: Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
|
Message 84 of 312 (436731)
11-27-2007 11:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by CK 11-27-2007 11:44 AM
|
|
Re: General Reply to all - suggestion for moving forward
CK, we tried to get Dawn to realize that science isn't about "truth" over at the PBS discussion regarding _Judgment Day_. I don't know as any progress was actually made.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 83 by CK, posted 11-27-2007 11:44 AM | | CK has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 85 by CK, posted 11-27-2007 11:51 AM | | JB1740 has replied | | Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 11-27-2007 12:35 PM | | JB1740 has replied |
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
|
Message 86 of 312 (436734)
11-27-2007 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by CK 11-27-2007 11:51 AM
|
|
Re: Hello and welcome
Danke
This message is a reply to: | | Message 85 by CK, posted 11-27-2007 11:51 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: avoiding reality?
Yes, Dawn, but in science we never know anything is absolutely true. We just don't. What people tend to call facts are really observations with error. All observations have error attached to them. The error might be vanishingly small, but it remains.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 89 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2007 12:02 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
|
Message 99 of 312 (436756)
11-27-2007 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 98 by Chiroptera 11-27-2007 12:35 PM
|
|
Hi Chiroptera. Thanks for the welcome. Agreed. Having folks like Dawn around always helps me hone the argument edge of my knowledge.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 11-27-2007 12:35 PM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 101 by subbie, posted 11-27-2007 12:45 PM | | JB1740 has replied |
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
|
Message 102 of 312 (436761)
11-27-2007 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by subbie 11-27-2007 12:45 PM
|
|
ahhh..excellent point.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 101 by subbie, posted 11-27-2007 12:45 PM | | subbie has not replied |
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: Clarifying terms
Again facts are Facts, when they are incontravertable But at the risk of repeating myself, again, in science (natural science I guess in this discussion) there are NO facts which are incontravertable. ALL observations have error. ALL of them. Go back...read that again. ALL of them. The error bars might be absurdly small, but they exist. No fact is true in the sense that it cannot be scrutinized.
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
|
Message 267 of 312 (438176)
12-03-2007 9:08 AM
|
|
|
Dawn also seems to be just ignoring post 169.
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Hi Dawn...just FYI...I didn't write the message to which this is a reply.
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: Summarizing it.
ID and its methods were an was an accepted science, (Fact, axiom and deductive reasoning), long before the so-caled 'scientific method'. and science evolved beyond this because of the numerous problems that have been repeatedly explained in this thread with doing science that way. If you are arguing for us to return to non-evidence based science, you need to demonstrate why science done that way works better than the way we currently do science.
|
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5965 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: 11-20-2007
|
Re: Summarizing it.
This of course is not the same as saying that the method discussed is not truth of act. What the heck does this mean? Which method are you referring to here? What the heck is "truth of act?"
Its application and usage is what you need to refute, What is its? Application and usage of what?
|