|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
When working in present day time and activity, all 5 human senses can be used to do all the empirical testing, measuring, and falsifying required by the scientific method to come to conclusions that can overcome personal beliefs and worldviews. Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied. Little more than the sense of sight, for example, can be used to come to conclusions about space exploration. Right. For example, I've never smelled, tasted, touched or heard the sun. So I guess "the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied" to the question of whether it exists. Either that or the scientific method is what scientists think it is and not what you think it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was only an opening post, intended to be brief and readable. Your questions allow me to go into more detail about my position. I'm not saying that anything that is only observable by one human sense cannot be scientific, I'm saying that if something is observable by only one human sense, and ALSO involves millions of years in the past, hundreds of light-years away, or conflicts with the basics of Christianity or U.S. foundings, then it may become too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method. Or not. So it would be sensible in any given case to find out whether it is or not, rather than saying "this is a proposition that can most easily be expressed in light-years rather than inches, and it's about something that I can't smell, so it may be too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method", and leaving it at that.
Testability and falsifiability are the two key words. They were established only to shout down the concept of Intelligent Design ... While I condemn the knavish chicanery of evolutionists in doing this, I have to feel a sneaking admiration for their ability to travel backwards in time. Creationists can't do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It would be more appropriate for you to show me how any detailed conclusion about something outside our solar system is testable or falsifiable, by means other than repetitive study by telescope. Yeah, how can we reach conclusions by means other than looking at all the available evidence? He's got us there. After all no-one's ever smelled the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, so it probably doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Concerning the part I bolded, I wonder if those 33 research scientists lost their jobs? Possibly not, but one thing's for sure, those findings never will make it anywhere near a science textbook, because it could clash with what atheist prophet Dawkins said about selfish genes. No it couldn't. But perhaps we should stick to the epistemology here, if you don't understand Dawkins I guess that would be a completely different topic. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes. No. --- In general, it should be pointed out that math per se can't be a source of knowledge about the universe, just about math. The question of whether a particular bit of math models some particular bit of the universe is, can you guess what sort of question ... that's right, a scientific one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There's a third view, which is that the laws of nature are so inimical to life that it can only exist as a result of God performing a miracle. And this is also creation science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
These are typical statements from these types of cases, we all know which sides we're on, and this thread isn't really about a lot of detail about that discussion. But the fact is, these conflicts have been going on, are going on, and will continue to go on. The fact that the scientific community and 99% of its followers are ALWAYS militantly on one side should at least initiate some discussion about the possibility that two types of science exist, and there may be evidence that double standards exist in the scientific community. What it actually suggests is that since scientists, who know about science, think that creationism is unscientific shit, it probably is unscientific shit. Where did you pull your bizarre non sequitur from?
Here's how Conservapedia describes the National Center for Science Education; And how is it described by the crazy man in the vomit-stained coat who stands outside Walmart and shouts gibberish at passers-by?
The NCSE has at least some unopposed CONTROL of what's being taught as science in public schools. Er, no. 'Cos of them not having any control over what's being taught as science in public schools, and 'cos of them not being unopposed. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Unless science is funded by the public. Even then, it only decides what questions should be studied using public money. It doesn't decide what the scientific method is or what the answer should be to the questions. (People who want to believe unscientific crap can of course do that for free.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's this straw man, this lie, that probably more than anything else, inspires millions of people all across the U.S. to take issue with what the science education establishment is doing. Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out. Splendid. Pop the champagne! You've won!
If they could, they'd vote to make sure atheist activists like Barbara Forrest weren't members of anything that makes decisions about what their children will be taught. And you won that one too! Hurrah! --- I was looking forward to this thread being about the "two types of science" mentioned in the OP. I'm happy mocking you on other subjects, don't get me wrong, but it's not as interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection? Those are indeed not processes by which things fall together. They're actually part of a quite different process known as evolution.
As far as I know, evolutionists will grudgingly admit that nature cannot have a purpose, and cannot plan for future function. And you are of course wrong --- there is nothing remotely "grudging" about the way that they insist on this obvious fact; and insisting vociferously on something is kind of the opposite of "admitting" it.
Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness. Don't be silly. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific. If that was an attempt to defend the nonsense you were talking about "selfish genes", it failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Marc, why are you no longer discussing the subject of your OP? Is it because you now realize your position on that topic is indefensible, or do you just have a really short attention span?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document? They are certainly permitted to. But have they in fact done so? I have yet to read their recantation.
No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state". You inadvertently said something true --- separation of church and state is not even slightly forbidden by "U.S. foundings" (bizarre phrase). You might want to go back and edit it so that it says something false. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning? Evidently so.
That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use. Evidently not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear. Clear to you, perhaps; the rest of us, who can't see the world in your head, would need to have it described to us.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024