Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 177 (589988)
11-05-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jon
11-05-2010 10:36 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method?
No, of course not, which is why I did not state or imply that in any way whatsoever.
If you sincerely want to find out what I think, then may I recommend to you as a first step that you should read what I actually wrote?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:36 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 177 (590002)
11-05-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
11-05-2010 12:02 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring?
Uh ... to the fact that there is no evidence that everything in the Bible is completely true.
It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'.
No.
If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced?
In the sense that it is unevidenced.
I don't know how to make this concept any simpler for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 12:02 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 3:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 177 (590101)
11-05-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jon
11-05-2010 3:59 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
You must be referring to specific types of evidence, because the claim that there is no evidence to support 'that everything in the Bible is completely true' is simply false.
We are talking about the same Bible, yes? The one which supplies no evidence for the unevidenced story about the unevidenced snake talking in an unevidenced way to unevidenced people about an unevidenced magic tree for which there is no evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 3:59 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 11:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 163 by Jon, posted 11-06-2010 12:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 167 of 177 (590179)
11-06-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Jon
11-06-2010 12:46 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
But there is evidence:
The Bible.
I think in normal usage a statement isn't considered evidence for itself.
If I tell you that I own a purple unicorn, have I thereby, just by saying so, simultaneously produced evidence that I own a purple unicorn?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Jon, posted 11-06-2010 12:46 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jon, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 177 (590232)
11-06-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jon
11-06-2010 10:29 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
Well; we can look within the Bible if you'd like. Or outside of it, lot's of folk have written about things in the Bible. So, there's more evidence if you are not fond of using statements to evidence their own truth.
Still think there's no evidence?
Well, where is it?
If I tell you that I own a purple unicorn, is that evidence that I own a purple unicorn?
In ordinary English as it is usually understood, the fact that someone has made a statement is not in and of itself considered evidence for that statement.
The book of Genesis is not evidence for the book of Genesis. It's the very thing that we want to have evidence for or against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jon, posted 11-06-2010 10:29 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Jon, posted 11-07-2010 11:14 AM Dr Adequate 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