Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8936 total)
26 online now:
Faith (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,939 Year: 16,975/19,786 Month: 1,100/2,598 Week: 23/323 Day: 23/51 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One small step for science...maybe?
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 16 of 29 (509110)
05-18-2009 6:25 PM


Truth
For those of us who believe truth can be found only through objective seeking, the removal of ideology from science is a triumph! There are those out there (ie. the Creation Institute) who believe that reasoning and scientific findings are subject to their predefined "truth", and who labor to distort facts to fit their worldview and to quiet the evidence that goes against their beliefs.

It's tyranny in a box


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 11:40 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 17 of 29 (509202)
05-19-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
05-18-2009 6:25 PM


Re: Truth
How do you use the scientific method to prove that truth can be known only through the scientific method ?

What experiment would you propose to prove that truth can only be known via the scientific method ?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 05-18-2009 6:25 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Meldinoor, posted 05-19-2009 11:46 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2009 11:58 AM jaywill has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 29 (509203)
05-19-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jaywill
05-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Truth
How do you use the scientific method to prove that truth can be known only through the scientific method ?
What experiment would you propose to prove that truth can only be known via the scientific method ?

You misunderstand. I said nothing about the scientific method. I am merely pointing out that without an objective mind you're not going to learn anything, you're just going to hold fast to your old beliefs. One thing I like to say to other Christians who disagree with this statement is:
If you were born a Hindu, and you kept a closed mind, you'd still be a Hindu. You'd never have become a Christian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 11:40 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:00 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 29 (509207)
05-19-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jaywill
05-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Truth
How do you use the scientific method to prove that truth can be known only through the scientific method ?

What makes you think science is seeking truth, Truth, TRUTH, or TRVTH?

Those are the province of dogma and belief, while science works with data and theory.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Intelligent design, on the other hand, starts with its conclusions and seeks to support them by cherry-picking from scientific data, while ignoring or distorting anything that doesn't fit.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 11:40 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:06 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 20 of 29 (509208)
05-19-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Meldinoor
05-19-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Truth
I noticed you did say this:

the removal of ideology from science is a triumph!

But aren't there some things which the scientist presupposes ? She assumes certain presuppositions.

I think that these presuppositions cannot themselves be proved by science. And I think that these presuppositions could be considered as ideology.

I question that any one can totally remove ideology from science.

And people of faiths do change. Hindus become Christians. And Christians become Hindus. At least cultural Christians and cultural Hindus do exchange beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Meldinoor, posted 05-19-2009 11:46 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 05-19-2009 12:59 PM jaywill has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 21 of 29 (509211)
05-19-2009 12:03 PM



By ideology I mean a kind of world view or philosophy about the way things are.

I don't think anyone totally removes philosophy from science. Science is based upon it. Science presupposes some philosophical concepts.


  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 22 of 29 (509212)
05-19-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
05-19-2009 11:58 AM


Re: Truth
It a good question. But I am curious why you only ask me.

The poster wrote:

For those of us who believe truth can be found only through objective seeking, the removal of ideology from science ...

Why did you wait to jump on me with the question ? Ask Meldnenoor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2009 11:58 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 23 of 29 (509213)
05-19-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coyote
05-19-2009 11:58 AM


Re: Truth
Intelligent design, on the other hand, starts with its conclusions and seeks to support them by cherry-picking from scientific data, while ignoring or distorting anything that doesn't fit.

How do I know that you are not "cherry picking" specific writers to bulster your claim ?

Have you read all publications by IDers? Are you yourself "cherry picking" glaring examples to make them representative of all the rest ?

You've heard of "Holier than Thou"? Have you heard of "More Logical than Thou"?

A similiar attitude I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2009 11:58 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 05-19-2009 12:47 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 24 of 29 (509220)
05-19-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jaywill
05-19-2009 12:11 PM


Cherry Picking
How do I know that you are not "cherry picking" specific writers to bulster your claim ?

If that is the case it is easy for you: just produce other writers and give an idea of what percentage of IDism they represent.

Then you can list the presuppositions of science and suggest how they might be a weakness or removable.

Since you're putting these positions forward perhaps you can support them. Others have failed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:11 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1212 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 29 (509225)
05-19-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jaywill
05-19-2009 12:00 PM


Re: Truth
But aren't there some things which the scientist presupposes ?

No.

What do you think science presupposes...?

I question that any one can totally remove ideology from science.

Science isn't a "thing" that thinks for itself. You may be right that you can't remove certain ideologies from people working in science, this is precisely the point with IDers, but science as an institution holds to no world view or ideology.

And people of faiths do change.

The point was that they WON'T change if the stay closed minded.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:00 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 2:49 PM onifre has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 26 of 29 (509236)
05-19-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
05-19-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Truth

jw:

But aren't there some things which the scientist presupposes ?

onfire:

No.

What do you think science presupposes...?

Science presupposes mathematics and logic. Science cannot prove them because science presupposes them.

Science presupposes itself - that the scientifc method discovers truth. But this cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.

So one can read books on Science, and books on History of Science, and books on the Philosophy of Science.

Laws of logic are used to help us to know truth. Laws of logic are used in doing science itself. Laws of logic are philosophical laws upon which science is based and cannot themselves be proved by science.


I question that any one can totally remove ideology from science.

Science isn't a "thing" that thinks for itself. You may be right that you can't remove certain ideologies from people working in science, this is precisely the point with IDers, but science as an institution holds to no world view or ideology.

Well, I don't see much difference. You say that I may be right that you cannot remove idealogies from people doing science. So then people doing science have ideologies and they may effect their thinking on scientific matters.

Saying, that only proponents of ID do that and everyone else does not, I think, is wishful thinking. Einstien hated to see the galaxies expanding from each other. He had a belief in an eternal universe. He didn't like to see that it was expanding and seemed to have a start from somewhere.

He said that his "constant" in one of this theories to account for an ever existing universe was the biggest blunder of his career. I think that this self confessed blunder was due to his ideology about an eternally existing universe - a rather philosophical idea.

You may say "But that is not science thinking that, that is the person Einstien." Does it really make that much difference?

So saying "only creationists and ID proponents are influenced by their world view and not the rest of us normal scientists" is mistaking yourselves for the people you'd like to be, I think.

The point was that they WON'T change if the stay closed minded.

- Oni

And being willing to go where ever the evidence points is a sign of a truly opened mind.

Sometimes I do not see that. I see people who would rather die than admit evidence points to intelligence in nature.

You may be about to do it yourself.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 05-19-2009 12:59 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 05-19-2009 3:10 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 05-19-2009 4:48 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Meldinoor, posted 05-19-2009 6:01 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1499 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 27 of 29 (509240)
05-19-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jaywill
05-19-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Truth
He said that his "constant" in one of this theories to account for an ever existing universe was the biggest blunder of his career. I think that this self confessed blunder was due to his ideology about an eternally existing universe - a rather philosophical idea.

You're right, Einstein had a bias, but the process of science pointed it out and he came to realize that he had made a mistake. The scientific method, coupled with peer review, do a very good job of straining out an individual's biases and ending up with something objective.

Also, science doesn't presuppose itself. It started as a way of thinking, and has since been shown to be a highly effective way of thnking and seeing the world. Science is used because science works.

Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 2:49 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1212 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 29 (509242)
05-19-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jaywill
05-19-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Truth
Science presupposes mathematics and logic. Science cannot prove them because science presupposes them.

Science is an institution built on the study of nature, there are no "presupposed" conditions to it. Within it, the methods are tried and tested, those that give results are kept, those that prove to be ineffective are discarded. The results speak for themselves.

Science presupposes itself - that the scientifc method discovers truth. But this cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.

No it does not. This is your take on it. There are NO "thuths" in science, there are only tentative explanations to natural phenomena. The method checks for the errors, again, those that prove to be ineffective in explaining the phenomenon are replaced by those theories that better explain it - like Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics.

The results speak for themselves.

Well, I don't see much difference. You say that I may be right that you cannot remove idealogies from people doing science. So then people doing science have ideologies and they may effect their thinking on scientific matters.

Absolutly. However, if they are wrong they are wrong. No matter what their ideologies are.

Saying, that only proponents of ID do that and everyone else does not, I think, is wishful thinking.

No. IDist stick to their individual ideologies in direct contradiction of the evidence. If they actually had a point to make they would have already made it. But they haven't, and they won't, for the simply reason that they cannot apply their ideologies to science and judge the evidence on that basis. They are wrong an continue to lack the evidence to prove otherwise.

He had a belief in an eternal universe.

Wrong. He, like every other physicist - with some exeptions - believed the universe was static, not "eternal".

The universe may very well still be eternal.

He didn't like to see that it was expanding and seemed to have a start from somewhere.

No he didn't. He was simply working his equations under the impression that space was static.

You are adding these additional opinions on your own.

He said that his "constant" in one of this theories to account for an ever existing universe was the biggest blunder of his career. I think that this self confessed blunder was due to his ideology about an eternally existing universe - a rather philosophical idea.

No. This "blunder" was due to the fact that Einstein was working under the impression that space was static.

HOWEVER, as was pointed out to you by Perdition, it was the very same scientific method that expossed his mistakes, the method you stated doesn't prove itself right. Yet it did in this very case.

So here you have an example of one of the greatest scientist making a mistake and, by applying the scientific method to his work, he was shown to be wrong. Did we continue on with the belief that the universe was not expanding? No. The theory was changed to incorporate the new evidence. The method works.

You may say "But that is not science thinking that, that is the person Einstien." Does it really make that much difference?

Of course it makes a difference. Einstein was wrong, right? No physicist thinks the universe is not expanding, right? Did anyone stick to their guns and say "screw what you guys think, I'm going with a non-expanding universe 'cause Einstein has a specific ideology"...? No. It was changed, period.

It makes a difference because his ideologies have no impact on where the evidence points to, as shown by the current cosmological model in which we have an expanding universe.

So saying "only creationists and ID proponents are influenced by their world view and not the rest of us normal scientists" is mistaking yourselves for the people you'd like to be, I think.

The evidence shows that their "world view" is wrong, they don't go where the evidence points to because they'd rather believe in their particular ideological opinions rather than admit to their mistakes - like Einstein did. :D

And being willing to go where ever the evidence points is a sign of a truly opened mind.

Sometimes I do not see that. I see people who would rather die than admit evidence points to intelligence in nature.

There are plenty of threads on this site for you to debate whether or not the evidence points to design, as of now though you remain silent in those threads. If you have evidence show it, or admit that you have none. Either way, this is not the thread for it.

This thread is about the removal of ideological opinions from science as the basis for proper science.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 2:49 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3069 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 29 of 29 (509247)
05-19-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jaywill
05-19-2009 2:49 PM


Re: Truth
And being willing to go where ever the evidence points is a sign of a truly opened mind.

That's exactly what science is about. Individual scientists may toy with the evidence to make it say things they want it to (like Kent Hovind, although I prefer not to refer to him as a "scientist").

This thread is about removing ideologies from science, specifically theology which removes plenty of assumptions, like "we didn't evolve", "natural processes cannot create information" etc. etc.

Even if there are many "assumptions" remaining, I don't see how you can protest the removal of presuppositions per your previous post.

Sometimes I do not see that. I see people who would rather die than admit evidence points to intelligence in nature.

You may be about to do it yourself.

There is plenty of intelligence in nature. Chimpanzees catching termites with sticks, for instance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 2:49 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019