|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Faith Comes From in the "moderate" Christian religions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
quote: In the context of "the nature of Peg", this is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps she is saying "evolution" and meaning "life origins". But in literally reading that statement, I don't find any problem with it. In all, I thought that message 4 was pretty good. Not a great masterpiece, but the non-admin mode did go so far as to give it a POTM nomination. Bottom line: I personally don't think that considerations of abiogenesis and/or evolution are really significant to the "moderate Christian." Actually, I sometimes wonder if the old testament in general is that significant to the "moderate Christian". Please, no responses to the moderation portion of this message. Members, however, may wish to pursue my statements of the previous paragraph. Even that, however, is rather off-topic. But I guess I can tolerate such in messages, if it does connect up to the faith origins of "moderate Christians." But maybe such may make for a good new topic. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, my beliefs are not evidence, im merely stating a fact No, you are telling a lie. You pretended that evolution today is not "based on the scientific method". Every time you say this, you are spewing falsehood out of your mouth,
the fact is that the idea of evolution began with greek philosophers who did not use science as a basis for the belief Which has now been proved by science, whatever a bunch of ancient Greeks thought. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: No, you are telling a lie. You pretended that evolution today is not "based on the scientific method". Every time you say this, you are spewing falsehood out of your mouth, my understanding is that the scientific method is to observe what happens and based on those observations form a theory as why it happens then test the theory by experiments to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled ie observe, theorize, test, conclude Is that the scientific method? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll have to quote Einstein on all this:
... The theory determines what you can observe It's not on the internet, but it is from a conversation with Heisenberg and I'll EDIT and transcript the complete quote when I get back home. (I don't have my book here) PS If I'm not mistaken, Karl Popper advances the same thing in his book 'The logic of scientific discovery' Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I think maybe you misunderstand Popper.
Here is some of what he has to say. In context.
Source quote: Oh even better. Read this.
quote: Do you think you can use Popper to support your claims now? I'd love to see the reference for the Einstein quote. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
my understanding is that the scientific method is to observe what happens and based on those observations form a theory as why it happens then test the theory by experiments to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled ie observe, theorize, test, conclude Is that the scientific method? No, but you're close. Remember that an experiment is only an observation made under artificial circumstances. You do not test a theory by experiments, necessarily, but by observations, of which experiments are merely a subset. For example, it is easy to test by observation the proposition that Saturn has rings. But how would one do an experiment to establish this fact? Hence, we test a theory against observations, of which predictions as to the results of experiments form only a subset. Apart from that one error, you have nearly understood how we know that evolution is true. I notice that we are wandering away from the topic of this thread. If you are still confused as to the scientific method, maybe we should start another thread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I was not talking the fact that evolution is falsifiable or not.
But that in science, in reality, the theory very often comes before the observation. Just as Einstein said: 'The theory determines what we can observe'. Here is the complete quote:
Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that is may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and beyond, trans. Arnold J. Pomerans (New York Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971), 63 In regards to Popper, he says that scientist do not work according to the scientific method, because to say you can start with observations but without a theory is absurd. Maybe we could start a thread about this in ''Is it science''
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4918 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
But that in science, in reality, the theory very often comes before the observation. Just as Einstein said: 'The theory determines what we can observe'. In some cases, slevesque, you are right. However, in many cases, you are mistaken. I notice that you said in most cases, not all, which is why I am not addressing that. However, in most prominent cases, such as the BBT (worked out w/ equations) or ToE (formed from observations while on a cruise).
In regards to Popper, he says that scientist do not work according to the scientific method, because to say you can start with observations but without a theory is absurd. I hope that you by "theory" you mean "hypothesis," as hypotheses are are formed through observation and should not attempt to misinterpret the facts, rather they should follow the scientific method. Theories are formed after many observations, experiments, and the combination of many conforming hypotheses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Indoctrination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Einstein and Heisenberg are actually two different people. This is why they have different names.
I can make nothing of the rest of your post: what on earth are you trying to suggest? Perhaps you should indeed start a new thread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yeah, maybe start a thread in the 'Is it science' section
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: Remember that an experiment is only an observation made under artificial circumstances. You do not test a theory by experiments it seems that you are saying the scientific method does not use or require experimentation as a means of establishing a fact is that correct???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, you have misunderstood me.
The scientific method involves testing hypotheses by comparing their predictions to relevant observations. Hence, when an experiment is relevant, the scientific method suggests that you should perform it. In some cases, however, there are no relevant experiments: consider propositions such as: "Saturn has rings" or "Elephants are bigger than mice" or "The climate of Arizona is dry" or "Porcupines do not breathe fire" or "The ancient Egyptians did not have bicycles" ... or ... well, you get the picture. There are innumerable truths which rest solely on observation, and on which no artificial set of circumstances produced by a scientist can possibly have any bearing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DrAdequate writes: There are innumerable truths which rest solely on observation, and on which no artificial set of circumstances produced by a scientist can possibly have any bearing. do you believe this to be the same principle where evolution is concerned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While there are some relevant experiments in evolutionary biology, the establishing of historical facts can rarely if ever depend on them. If we wish to know whether, for example, pterodactyls are extinct, what can we do except observe the world and notice that we can't find any living pterodactyls? There is nothing we can do in a test tube, or a Petri dish, or, if it comes to that, a particle accelerator, that could conceivably be relevant to the question.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024