Science: A Method not a Source

So here, being "Scientific" is just following a particular methodology. When the 'scientific community' dismisses a creationist as unscientific, they are not necessarily just talking about the particular methodology that the creationist is following.You are correct that it is possible for a creationist to employ the scientific methodology on Biblical evidence, and if someone implied that they weren't, by calling them unscientific, then they would technically be incorrect.But that's not what what is being meant, and your ramifications require that this charge of 'unscientific' necessarily refers to just the claim that they aren't following the scientific methodology. So no, your wrong. Not necessarily, the term is used broader, but you could define it that narrowly if you want to.And even if you do, I think you'll find that craetionist typically are not following a scientific methodology, so it be right to call those unscientific still. Using them would be as evidence, not an application of the methodology. Because its bad evidence, regardless of the methodology.

I saw it as a false equivalency. He's talking about two different things.Ah yes, earlier you said: Exactly.Although I doubt he'll ever accept it Heh. Jon.

I haven't seen him specifically claim that, nor necessarily imply it. It'd be good to know. Ergo, its best for him if he avoids answering it. If you stick a pH probe in 1N HCl and it reads 10, then you don't go and apply a scientific methodlogy and try to figure out how the solution is that way. You go: "this probe is junk" He's misunderstanding what people mean when they call something "unscientific". He's assuming it refers solely to their application of a methodology, like I said in my earlier post.

We have access to the same dictionaries... Do you really want to argue definitions?Why don't we look at some examples of the scientific community calling creationinsts "unscientific" and see if we can figure out what they actually meant by that?Did you have something particular in mind when you wrote the OP, or is this just something that's all in your head? Oh hell no. The user of the methodology can impact the quality of it. In our lab, the one guy is definately better at science than the other. It'd take you 2 seconds with their lab notebooks to figure out which one I'm calling better.Or am I misunderstanding you here? But not your only point...You want to say that calling a creationinst 'unscientific' is wrong because they could be properly employing the scientific method. No?You're wrong because, well first off let's be honest, they don't really follow the scientific method. But anyway, saying something is 'unscientific' could be saying something other than 'not following the right methodology', so which ever way you're still wrong.

No, some things.Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality.

That's not even really important to the argument in your OP, so that stands as refuted by me.As I said:

quote:

---

You are correct that it is possible for a creationist to employ the scientific methodology on Biblical evidence, and if someone implied that they weren't, by calling them unscientific, then they would technically be incorrect.

---

What, exactly, are you looking at? Are you seeing anything when you look at it?Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence? I still suspect they're only in your head. Oh yeah, its so scientific. I mean, their methodology is just great. Those big dummies calling them unscientific are totally wrong about that.

Oh, I saw that. Where are these places!? I'm asking you for examples of the scientific method being used on other sources. I don't think there are any that are any good in their method. Being the master debater that you are, of course you'd avoid anything that would hurt your position. I contend that there aren't really any creationists doing sound science but on Biblical sources, and that this is all in your head as a hypothetical possibility. That there could be a creationist that is scientific.BFD.

Jar was saying that imagination is one of the components of reason, logic and reality. You asked how they could come to it without imagination. His point is that even with just reason, logic, and reality, you would still be with imagination. I dunno, I suppose I could, but that one's wierd. The Rain Dance would be easier, and its kinda the same point.Although, would using post hoc ergo propter hoc count as using logic to you, even though its bad logic?If the indian notices that it rains after he does some dance, and he concludes that the dance is causing the rain, and then whittles out this Rain Dance, I would say that he did use some reason, logic, and reality to come to the conclusion of the Rain Dance.Being wrong doesn't mean he didn't use them. And of course there's some imagination in there, but that doesn't mean he didn't use them either.Why do you think he didn't?

Right. So it is all in your head. You had me until 'not worth your time participating'... Yeah, its definately irrelevant.But I do like refuting your arguments. You seem to be very conceited and to think you're profound. I enjoy comming in and exposing your shallow pedantry for what it is.

I've refuted your OP. Message 28 awaits reply. From the OP:

quote:

---

I propose that the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature to generate knowledge about the physical world is not, as many claim, unscientific or (dare I say) 'supernatural', but instead perfectly good science differing only in results (by means of different inputs) from presently accepted knowledge in the overall scientific community. To clarify, I am not addressing specifically the knowledge itself that is so generated, but rather the methodologythat is, the generation of knowledge about the physical world based on the reading of histories.

​

I also propose that the ramifications from dismissing these methods as unscientific undermine the entire framework of science and the scientific ideals of investigation, skepticism, and minimally assumptive explanations (Occam's Razor). That many in the 'scientific community' are so quick to dismiss these methods as unscientific quackery shows their lack of respect for this framework and these ideals; and these prejudices work hard against the virtues of the scientific method that make it so much a valuable tool of discovery.

---

None of that stuff is actually happening. Its just a hypothetical possibility in your head.It might be irrelevant to your hypothetical possibility, which I've already agreed is possible, but its relevant to the point that it doesn't matter because its not real.

You asked both... He was obviously responding to the bolded question. Then your questions don't make any sense. That's why I provided my own... that you didn't adress. No, but it answers your other question. And this question was addressed by myself in the post you responded to, with the Rain Dance. But you didn't address it, so...So what?

But it isn't either/or.You can use reason, logic and reality... and imagination to come to a conclusion. Just because you're using imagination doesn't mean that you're not using reason, logic and reality, and visa versa.Now when you say strictly rational, I think the imagination has to be removed so then you're no longer talking about what jar was talking about. Just because they were doesn't mean that they couldn't have had reason, logic, and reality thrown in as well.I'm gonna combine my reply to Message 158I chimed in just to correct a simple misunderstanding. But I have since answered both those questions. Well I'm not seeing it. Oh. Well then your questions make even less sense. As above, you seem to think this is an either/or thing. Because its not, you're questions don't make sense. I think jar's answer would be that it isn't without imagination. I don't think I've ever taken the postion that simply having an unfalsified status was all that matters.The position on the dancing angels was that you couldn't rationally conclude that one was more likely that the other. I never said that I thought that the liklihoods were equal.Can you tie this old shit to the topic?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I've lost track of where I was at in this thread, and I'm getting tired so I won't be able to offer a proper reply, but I do have a question: Can you run me through the logic on how the ability to make a predication makes an explanation more likely to be representative of reality?And then, what about the unpredictable?