It's your thread, but IMO, this debate is impossible. Faith begins with a particular unfalsifiable ideology about scriptural interpretations, and all conclusions and inferences are subject to that ideology. She has made her position quite clear on this point.
However, this sort of epistemology is vastly different from a scientific epistemology. In a scientific epistemology, every assertion must be falsifiable, even (perhaps especially) assertions about the proper interpretation of religious texts and scientific implications thereof.
Here is simply too wide an epistemological gap to be bridged, IMO.
I disagree. This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.
I think you're talking more about experimental science. Like you said, that's not close to what Faith's doing. But that's not an appropriate approach for YECs.
Of course, take this statement with a big grain of salt. In forensic science, you don't question the foundations of the sciences that you're investigating with. Faith has to do that. But I don't think it's in principle a different approach than what happens in forensic science.
"Is it Science" please.
(edited to turn off email notifications) (edited to replace 'science' with 'investigation' in the title)
This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 10:54 AM
This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 12:33 PM
If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it".
you're looking at this from your own perspective. Get outside your own skinbag and see what Faith sees.
Faith sees data where you see insanity. From Faith's perspective, it's a dead body. Some faith, belief, is so strong, it doesn't change in the face of evidence. It's like when somebody believes their child is still alive, when all signs point to her death. You turn over every stone looking for the child. The fact that science is inductive knowledge suddenly becomes crucial; it gets questioned because it CAN be questioned. The possibility for success in any one spot is low. But you have to try.
Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept.
This is from your own perspective. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. This is a strawman of Faith's position.
Let me try to put it this way. From a non-believer's perspective, what's going on here has less to do with reality and more to do with what's in Faith's head. You may not like it, but those are the facts. You may not like it, but it doesn't change. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean you can characterize her approach like this.
Data is data. Faith is faith. Gut is gut. You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts.
Take it somewhere else, would you? Half of your comments do nothing to further a thread. You may as well just post nothing and have in your signature "I'm Nuggin, and I like to parody YECs". At least I wouldn't have to bother reading this over and over.
Sorry, it IS God's word, it is not a figment of our imagination. What you are asking Nuggin to accept is NOT what I believe. Sorry, you are making a heroic effort but it's not doing me any favors in the end.
You have to be able to take Nuggin's perspective as well. From Nuggin's perspective, it IS a figment of your imagination. I'm not interested in judging "truth". The point is to be able to accept somebody else's viewpoint.
I'm not trying to tell people that your views are figments of your imagination. I'm trying to instruct people how to understand your point of view, from THEIR point of view. I'm trying to work with each person's faith, as it were.
I think I didn't convey that well to Nuggin. I did a better job conveying it to Jar I think.
Just like others aren't going to convince you that your faith is wrong and yours is right, you're not going to convince others that their faith is wrong and yours is right. I ask of you only what I ask of everybody else.
Do you want to live in a society where that's the rule of law? Want to be on trial for murdering your 105 year old grandmother with a magic heart attack gun while she slept?
It's a good question; I think this belongs in the thread about governement and science. The fact is, though, you live in a society with people who have beliefs, non-empirical thoughts. Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread, I'm asking you to accept their right to have a perspective, to proceed in their investigation, and to characterize it as it is.
The problem is that YECs have a conclusion "this guy was murdered" before doing the work answering the question "how did this guy die".
Still from your perspective. The closest I can change this into the YEC perspective is, they know the guy was murdered before they can show it with evidence. Somehow they have special access to "truth" that transcends empricism. You're missing that part of the perspective. You're working from a purely empirical perspective--that's your own.
I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate.
Well... let me say it like this. Regardless of the origin of her position, whether it's a faith in God, a faith in the Bible, or a faith in what her church says... it doesn't ultimately change the form of what she's doing. She has faith. And the faith provides basically a data point for her.
Yes, a data point that others don't recognize. Yes, a data point that is not empirical. But it acts like a data point. Those are the facts.
1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.
2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.
I'm cool with that. I don't think it needs to be brought into every discussion, though. We do have to live with each other. My goal is to provide a way to do that without the constant bickering and invading of each others' space.
Yes, I know many religious people are evangelistic. It doesn't make it OK to do as well. Let's keep our own beliefs and judgements in our own backyards and in our own communities. No matter who we are.
Science assumes a conclusion, just like with the flood. But it differs in that it then asks 'if our conclusion (hypothesis) is true, what would we expect to find, what do we find and does what we find contradict our hypothesis'.
This is the scientific method, this is experimental science. I totally agree that what Faith is doing CANNOT be characterized as experimental science.
I think this might be erroneous. Forensics don't start with a known conclusion. Example: We have a dead body, that is our data.
I think this is just an argument of words and labelling then. "Conclusion" means, "the final end point." In forensics and in Faith's investigation, it's a chronological investigation. And in both cases, you basically have the information that anchors your investigation as data. In experimental science, you don't have that.
If you call a dead body just data, then you might as well call "the flood happened" data from Faith's perspective. I call it the "conclusion" because I think it's a little more than just data. It's the critical data that anchors the entire investigation.
I do appreciate your approach of analysis though. Keep working with me to see if we can straighten this out. It's possible I'm wrong... but I don't think so :)
If anybody from Kansas came on my thread and started talking about that stuff, I'd get in admin mode and suspend them.
Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread
There's a time and place for every discussion. This thread is not about it threats to get things in the school system. I suggested a thread where I thought it would be appropriate to address that issue. There are lots of threads like that, it doesn't have to be that one. Just, I'm sure it's not the issue of THIS thread.
Cool. Let's see if Faith can pull it off. She has a HUGE weight on her shoulders--she has to reformulate science... herself. It's a tall order for anybody to do. There's a lot of data out there.
But that's what she has to do. It's the only way to proceed when you take on her perspective. So, the choices are.. either treat her as crazy for believing in the Flood, or believe she's doing the only thing she can. Hammering on her methodology is silly. It's the most ... valid method to follow, given the specific unquestionable base she's working on.