Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8985 total)
49 online now:
14174dm, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Harrypotter123
Post Volume: Total: 877,729 Year: 9,477/23,288 Month: 492/1,544 Week: 206/561 Day: 32/14 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 35 of 96 (377294)
01-15-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


What actually is 'creation science'?

The belief that a Creator is responsible for natural law as opposed to a series of unguided anomalies.

What is 'Christian science'?

Christian science literally has nothing to do with science. Its purely spiritual.

Islamic science?

I've never heard of it. I have heard of Qur'an-based creationism though.

Hindu science?

I've never heard of it.

Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'?

Yes. Its referred to as "Secular Science." In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.

Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? 'Fascist science'?

Sure, why not. We have polysci (political science). That has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Would 'socialist science', for example, necessarily conclude that we are all born equal? Would 'fascist science' necessarily conclude that there is a genetic elite of some sort?

Probably. That's basically what eugenics, which is a branch of science, is all about. All one has to do is study science and attach a particular philosophical credo to it.

Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific?

Its probably used to identify what it means.

Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms?
(where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of)

Not really since the half life of scientific fact is is an often tentative or tenuous one.

Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'. If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question

If creationists say that evolutionary theory is a belief based on science? I'm certain they would agree that it is based on an inkling of science. The veracity of something doesn't make it science, the method does. So, yes, of course evolution attempts to use science in order to corroborate its claims. The rightness of it is the job of science to determine.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:56 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Wepwawet, posted 01-16-2007 1:12 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 39 by platypus, posted 01-16-2007 3:56 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2007 8:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 56 of 96 (377531)
01-17-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Wepwawet
01-16-2007 1:12 AM


Why does your link go to a topic with the name "Secular Education" and not a topic called "Secular Science"? Is it just that no topic under the heading of "Secular Science" exists on Wikipedia?

Because that's what Wiki diverted me to. If there is no match, Wiki will let you know. However, if something closely matches another in your search request, it will automatically bring you to the closest match.

Your definition of secular appears nowhere.

I said it was "wordly," which is exactly what secular means.

Science is secular by definition.

Exactly my point. I didn't say it derisively, I'm stating something factual.

Your definition deliberately twists it to try and make it sound like science avoids studying or belief in the supernatural out of some attempt to destroy religion.

No, science is only equipped to study the physical world, which is fine. Science is ill-equipped to make any sort of determination on what is "spiritual" and what is not. The only thing science can do in defense for any spiritual beliefs is to note the appearance of design. The point is that the OP asked if there was anything known as "atheist science." I responded that, yes, in a sense "secular science" is an inherently atheistic premise. In fact, it is its sole premise.

Eugenics is a branch of science?

What cytogenetics is called today, used to be referred to as eugenics, which is a very real study. What I mean to say is that the sociological view associated with eugenics precipitates from the study of cytogenetics.

Do you say that only because it sounds vaguely scientific? Eugenics at best is a particular flavor of social philosophy...a belief if you will. It's got more in common with religion than it does with science.

Lets try this again since you're a big advocate for the Dictionary.

cytogenetics: the branch of biology linking the study of genetic inheritance with the study of cell structure, esp. for human chromosome analysis for the detection of inheritable diseases.

eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Therefore, cytogenetics could be construed as the application of positive eugenics-- in fact, the whole point is to eliminate undesirable traits that lead to disease.

Any scientific position is tentative or it is not scientific. This has been explained before. Science makes absolutely no claim to holding the keys to eternal truth. Sure some folks may speak of science in terms of truth and fact but the philosophy of science holds all such positions as tenuous suppositions that are to be modified or overturned as our understanding increases. You've had all this explained to you before, do you not understand it or do you have a need to see science as something it is not?

I never needed it to be explained to me before. The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact. It all boils down to belief when you you think about it. And just so you know, I'm not saying that science should dogmatically hold on to a previous view if it is demonstrably shown false. I'm merely pointing out that if something is considered true today, wait around and it might be completely false in a couple of days.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Wepwawet, posted 01-16-2007 1:12 AM Wepwawet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 01-17-2007 1:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 01-17-2007 1:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Jazzns, posted 01-17-2007 4:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 64 by platypus, posted 01-17-2007 8:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Wepwawet, posted 01-17-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 57 of 96 (377532)
01-17-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by platypus
01-16-2007 3:56 AM


Reticence
I believe the intent was "belief-based science," not a "belief based on science." The difference being, I believe, that a belief-based science is one which will only accept preconcieved ideas, in other words only reach certain conclusions which agree with its belief and not others. Is this what you believe?

I understand what the OP meant. I'm merely attempting to show that virtually all science will pander to preconceived notions, whether they ascribe to a secular or religious world view.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by platypus, posted 01-16-2007 3:56 AM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2007 12:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 01-17-2007 1:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020