Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 47 (475047)
07-13-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 5:55 AM


Testable
Science can only deal with naturalistic conclusions because only naturalistic conclusions are physically testable.
The foundation of science is the testing of tentative conclusions. In other words hypotheses.
If your hypothesis is physically untestable (e.g. "God did it") then how can it be scientifically tested and thus rendered reliable?
It cannot. Thus mystical conclusions ca by definition never be considered scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 5:55 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 8:59 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 24 of 47 (475072)
07-13-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 8:59 AM


Re: Testable
The statement "God did it", cannot be tested scientifically because God resides in the spiritual domain,
Exactly. Thus spiritual conclusions cannot be scientific conclusions. we seem to agree.
where also the values of justice and mercy are. So we can discover those things subjectively, by decision, through faith.
We can rationally decide a set of rules by which to live peacably and justly without faith.
In fact faith is likely to lead to widespread disagreement as each faith will potentially provide a set of equally unarguable rules to which the only basis is "I have faith that I am right". Thus competing faiths with different ideas that are as uncomromisong as they are unprovable. A recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe, and what the outcome of those decisions are.
How can you prove these scientifically if, as already agreed, spiritual conclusions are untestable and thus unscientific?
And from thereon by art of reasonable judgement we can decide the spirit of such decisions, be they of God or the devil.
Now you have lost the plot. You have extrapoloated your unscientfic conclusion, added on on some subjective reasoning and come up with a "proof" of your preconceived theistic conclusion.
It is inevitable that those scientists who don't believe in a spiritual domain, will come to see god, justice, mercy and the like as measurable.
Really? Who says these things are measurable?
I fundamentally disagree with the origins of justice, mercy and even belief as compared to you. However I make no claims that these things can be measured......
I have no idea what you mean.
And that more then anything, to relentlesly insist on everything being measurable to the inclusion of good and evil, tears science apart and totally destroys it.
Having built up your straw man you are now ranting incoherently against it.
In any case, as mentioned before, we now have mystery incorporated into science, and it is perfectly legal here in Europe
Where? Example?
and the main thrust of scientific progress.
The thrust of scientific progress is the testing of hypotheses.
Creationism/IDism makes no testable hypotheses and is therefore unscientific.
Until creationism/ID is able to be verified by means of hypothesis, prediction and verification it will always remain unscientific and will always be considered to be unscientific by all except a small band of believers who wish to give their beliefs the authority and validity that science has earned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 8:59 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 9:51 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 47 (475077)
07-13-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 9:51 AM


Re: Testable
I said by art of reasonable judgement we can find the spirit. It is an art, not a science, I did not offer proof, I offered judgement.
Subjective, untestable and unreliable judgements from the sound of it.
As a matter of scientific fact we can't discover justice without faith.
We may not discover it. It arguably does not exist external to us in such a way as to be discoverable. But we can rationally conclude what we mean by 'justice' and how best to implement methods of justice with no reference to faith whatsoever.
So it is impossible for science to say anything about justice, or anything of that kind.
Well...... evolutionary psychology and anthropology arguably suggest otherwise.
Certainly other cultures with no concept of the Christian God (for example) have derived forms of justice many aspects of which we would agree with and some of which we would probably not.
If faith is our guiding light in tersm of justice and morality which faith are we to adhere to and why?
I wonder what "rational rules" you had in mind. In this context it seems you derive those rational rules from science, the science of good and evil.
No not good and evil. Not natural and unnatural. In many cases quite common sense rules regarding respecting others as you would wish to be respected. Rules which if followed by everyone obviously benefit everyone.
You can scientifically formalise these into things such as zero sum games etc. etc. and this can be worthwhile for understanding the psychology of such things but I don't think you need this sort of scientific analysis in order to conclude that such rules are beneficial to all concerned.
Ofcourse you also state that you are against a science of good and evil, but on the other hand you deny a spiritual domain, and deny faith as the right way to justice
Thinking in terms of good and evil has no real relation to any science I am aware of.
You see when you would admit a spiritual domain, I would be much more trusting that you don't surreptiously have some kind of science of good and evil. But when you talk about rules that are "rational", then it seems to me that you derive the rationality of the rules from the rationality of science.
Are you seriously suggestin that without faiith (and which faith specifically are we talking about here?) you cannot derive a founding set of principles and rules by which a community of people will be more likely to benefit and thrive.
Obviously a community of pathalogical murderers will be a short lived community. It does not take faith or formalised science to realise that!!
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 9:51 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 10:46 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 29 of 47 (475092)
07-13-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 10:46 AM


Re: Testable
Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals
Yes. Rationally devised rules and goals. That would be justice as we decide to define it. Your point is what...?
You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil.
I am not playing word games. I honestly and genuinely do not see faith as having any necessary bearing on the concept of justice whatsoever.
How can it when different faiths and even those of the same faith conclude different forms of justice?
A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge.
The spiritual realm has nothing to do with the very rational and pragmatic concept of being judged by ones peers.
What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently?
Do you know what zero sum games and non-zero sum games are? What action is evil in such a game? What action is good? The whole point of such analysis is to demonstrate that co-operation is actually the best means of ensuring long term self ineterest. Is that good? Or bad? I don't see how you can frame the conclusions of non-zero sum games in terms of good and evil given that co-operation and altruism are deemed to be consequences of long term self interest.
in these terms you might as well claim that an Earthquake is evil.
Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society.
And where do you derive these beliefs from?
The actions of God in the OT? The teachings of Christ in the NT? The Koran? The founding book of Scientology? Where?
BTW - As interesting as all of this is, what does it have to do with the fact that Creationist methodologies make no predictions, test no conclusions and are thus inherently unscientific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 10:46 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:45 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 47 (475096)
07-13-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:34 AM


New Thread Required
Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.
Which is why such a thread would probably not get promoted.
I am happy to continue the morality/justice/natural/spiritual/rational discussion but we reall should do it somewhere else.
Why don't you start a new thread with the foundation and crux of your ideas spelt out to begin with and then we can take things from there if you so wish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:34 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 47 (475115)
07-13-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 11:53 AM


Re: New Thread Required
Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor,
So what?
There are lots and lots of award winning professors who would say that justice and morality are best explained by natural, non-faith based explanations.
So what?
besides there is widespread precedent from common knowledge, and religion,
Decisions are real..... Who said decisions are not real?
we started taking about the testability and thus scientfic validity of conclusions and ended up discussing justice as a natural Vs faith based concept.
I never said decisions are not real!! Do you think I am claiming that we are all pre-programmed automatons following a preset destiny?
Nothing could be further frommy view.
It would be unreasonable to hold freedom in such doubt, to confine it to a single thread, and a single person
You obviously have a pet theory. If you are confident of it's validity why not give it it's own platform, explain it in detail and let the masses analyse it, question it and understand it?
I was actually not thinking of a single person debate but a single topic thread.
although on the other hand I would be very much honored to be given such a tremendous authority.
You have the opportunity.........
Why not take it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 11:53 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 47 (475117)
07-13-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 12:43 PM


Re: New Thread Required
You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.
Where? Can you provide a link to the post?
I will read it and the maybe I will start the new thread on that topic.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 12:43 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 47 (475138)
07-13-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Syamsu
07-13-2008 2:46 PM


Re: New Thread Required
No, you just do a googlesearch on "hyperincursive" if you want more information on that new theory.
Oh Jeez. Not you too.
You should talk to Brendatucker in the Raising Standards thread!!!! It sounds like you deserve each other.
You can't expect for a creationist not to mention freedom and decision, since creation is universally understood as a free act. You can't oppress an entire category of knowledge.
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you were willing to describe and defend your ideas here at EvC, in a new thread, I would participate.
However I will cease spamming this topic as of.....Now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 2:46 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2008 3:26 PM Straggler 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