Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do science and religion have rights to some "explanatory space"?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2816 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 37 (491930)
12-24-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by erikp
12-24-2008 9:04 AM


Re: A Serious Misunderstanding of the Scientific Method
Hi, Erik. Welcome to EvC!
erikp writes:
By defining "true" as "can impossibly be contradicted by facts" (past or future), a thesis and its antithesis can both be true at the same time.
First, you've conveniently defined "true" to include unfalsifiability, which is obviously not compatible with Popperian logic. Yet, you still regularly appeal to Popper.
Second, I'd like to see an example wherein both the thesis and its antithesis are concurrently true.
Third, what does this have to do with science and religion having "explanatory space?" Make sure you relate your posts back to the topic of the thread.
-----
Since you're new at EvC, here are some helps:
The admins like you to use the premade quote boxes for quoting other posts. Use these codes (without the spaces) to make quote boxes:
[ q s ] Paste quote here [ / q s ]
Without the spaces, it ends up like this:
Paste quote here
Or, as Paul likes to do, you can use this one:
[ quote ] Paste quote here [ / quote ]
And it looks like this:
quote:
Paste quote here
Also, each message has a "Peek" button at the bottom of it, to let you see what codes were used in that message. And, on the "Reply" page, there's a list of "dBCodes" provided.
Edited by Bluejay, : Code problems
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by erikp, posted 12-24-2008 9:04 AM erikp has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2816 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 37 (494059)
01-13-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by erikp
01-13-2009 6:41 AM


Topic Check?
Hi, Erik.
erikp writes:
A theory is false, if at least one observation contradicts it.
A theory is true, if all possible observations concur with it.
If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, all possible observations necessarily concur with it, and therefore, the theory must be considered to be true.
This is the logic equivalent of "innocent until proven guily," I suppose?
From a practical point of view, what use is this definition? You are aware that "explanatory space" refers to practicality, right?
Can your method be used to answer questions about reality?
If not, then I submit that your opinion has neither any rights to any explanatory space, nor any rights to space on this thread.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by erikp, posted 01-13-2009 6:41 AM erikp 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