I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!

Just a small point tesla, Science doesn't take anything on trust.Therefore science cannot recognize it and still be science.Enjoy.

---

Hi tesla, If anything, I would put this the other way: scientists (tentatively) trust the work of others, especially when that work is repeated and repeated and repeated. This is because it is difficult to repeat everything from scratch.But the key is that this "trust" is tentative, that the concepts can be invalidated, and when this happens they are discarded.This is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god, is it?Every theory we know is based on a simple formula: if X is true then Y results. That Y is observed does not mean that X is true (the "all a is b; b; therefore a" logical fallacy), just that it may be true. With no evidence that invalidates the truth of X we may regard the theory as tentatively true (for now).This is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god. Curiously, you did not provide a link to show what you are talking about here.I did a google on your phrase and came up with jumbled garbage - where each of the words appear but not the phrase - certainly no clear and concise list. Then I put it in quotes and got fficial&client=firefox-a]-->this result:

quote:

---

EvC Forum: I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!
oh no. science does. many scientists dont. see the science rule for objective reality. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that ...
EvC Forum: Information... - 4 hours ago

---

Interesting eh?If what you are referring to is the assumptions made about objective reality -- that (a) it actually exists (rather than everything being illusion) and (2) the evidence we see is indicative of that objective reality (that evidence doesn't "lie" about reality) -- then this is the foundation of all perceptions of reality, not just science, and in science it is still a tentative assumption.Something held tentatively is not trust in the way you used it for your faith in god, is it? Trust₁ is not the same as trust₂, and using one for the other is the logical fallacy of equivoction.Enjoy.

---

Thanks tesla, Curiously, that is only one person's logical argument for the existence of objective reality -- "whatever remains true whether you believe in it or not" -- rather than a general rule of science as you asserted.As I pointed out, this is rather just an example of how the assumption of objective reality is part of the foundation of many worldviews, not just science.Note that, as a logical argument, it is only true if the premises are true. At some point we assume the truth, and that makes all conclusions based on that assumption necessarily tentative. Amusingly, you can also disagree that the earth orbits the sun, but this does not change reality. We can agree, for the sake of argument, that evidence is objectively true.We can agree, for the sake of argument, that multiple consilient experiences of many people of certain evidence/s can be indicative of a high degree of confidence that the experiences involved reality.This, however, does not mean that science - the branch of knowledge that tries to explain the evidence - is not tentative.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : this not the

---