Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,747 Year: 4,004/9,624 Month: 875/974 Week: 202/286 Day: 9/109 Hour: 2/3


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 3 of 144 (295487)
03-15-2006 10:06 AM 		Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM

What is a fact; what is truth?
This thread could cover both how geology presents its Old Earth interpretations as if they were fact, and how biological science presents ToE interpretations as if they were fact.
Fact: squiggly marks on paper
Interpretation: Bible, Adam and Eve, Jesus
​
You cannot make an arbitrary and capricious distinction between fact and interpretation in science, yet hold that your own religious views are fact.
​
If you want to get into the fact vs. interpretation question, you have to start by examining our concept of "fact". And, with that, you will have to also examine our concept of "truth".
​
So what is fact? What is truth? Are these part of the topic, or will you consider them off-topic?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has not replied
  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 109 of 144 (296477)
03-18-2006 12:39 PM 		Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
03-18-2006 11:46 AM

Re: The point is it that it doesn't matter
It is NOT the obligation of the average layperson to check things out that scientists say.
Correct.
​
However, it is the obligation of those who challenge the factuality of scientific statements, to check out the evidence and provide data to support their criticism.
​
In this case, you are the critic, and it is your obligation to support your challenge. Instead, we see you saying (in Message 103):
​
You are right, I ignored the paper. It is completely irrelevant to what I had to say. What I said is sufficient on the face of it, and that's that. Take it or leave it.
Sorry, but I see your Message 103 as an admission that you are making an baseless attack on science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 03-18-2006 11:46 AM Faith has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024