Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A higher power is real but maybe not the way most of us worship
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 1 of 23 (39168)
05-06-2003 11:56 PM


.
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2003 12:31 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 2 of 23 (39175)
05-07-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DC85
05-06-2003 11:56 PM


DC85, you're committing the logical error of equivocation.
That is, you are correct that the definition of "science" includes such things as (thank you, Merriam-Webster) "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
However, "science" also means the systematic method of investigation of physical phenomenon. You know, that "observe, hypothesize, experiment, verify, lather, rinse, repeat" thing.
To behave as if these two definitions are equivalent and that one can switch between the two in every context is disingenuous. In this context in this group, the word "science" almost always means the latter, not the former.
I think you eventually said that in the end when you said:
quote:
That would mean that Christianity and an other Religions are in fact a science they are all here in order to feed our need "to Know" so I must disagree with this common statement.
And when the person who told you that "belief in evolution is a religion," there are two logical errors going on. The first is that evolution is not a "belief." Nothing in science is "believed" in the same sense that one would say that one "believes" in god. On a fundamental level, everything in science is tentative. Since science is based upon observation and since it is impossible to make every single possible observation, there is always the possibility that we have missed something. Science has confidence in their results, but it does not "believe" them.
The other error, once again, is equivocation and this time it is of the word "religion." The speaker was no doubt using such a tremendously broad definition that wanting to watch the football games would qualify as a "religion," and I doubt that anybody would seriously equate the "religion" of, say, Christianity with the "religion" of Monday Night Football.
No, evolution is not a "religion." How many religions do you know that would willingly accept their own demise if someone were to show them an experiment that showed all their results to be in error?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DC85, posted 05-06-2003 11:56 PM DC85 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 3 of 23 (39176)
05-07-2003 12:41 AM


although under modern standards it wouldn't but yes Christianity and other religions are science under the old understanding science literally translates from Latin(rough Latin) "to know" and what you said seems to confirm it are you going to tell a Christian that no one saw Jesus ever or that it was never whitnessed? I think not! so observation? now Unfortunately people seem to think science is clean cut thats it. but its not so yes Christianity would be a science because science is based mostly on theory itself so even if it can't be confirmed its still and idea or a theory
[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-06-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 05-07-2003 2:05 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 23 (39186)
05-07-2003 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DC85
05-07-2003 12:41 AM


DC85 responds to me:
quote:
although under modern standards it wouldn't but yes Christianity and other religions are science under the old understanding
Irrelevant.
Are you trying to say that the journal Science is using the old definition?
I am not denying your definition. I am denying your attempt to switch definitions in the middle of a sentence.
That is, you can call Christianity a "science," but you cannot then use the same word with the same meaning to describe the systematized method of inquiry into physical phenomena because Christianity does not follow that method.
It may very well be that both terms are about "knowledge," and I did directly state that. However, when a physicist talks about the "science of kinematics," he is not referring to anything that could even remotely be related to religion in general or Christianity in particular.
That is the logical error of equivocation, DC85. It is taking a single word with two definitions and behaving as if those definitions are interchangeable.
Take, for example, the word "theory." In certain contexts, it means "educated guess." In other contexts, it means "analysis of facts." To take a sentence spoken in the latter context and meaning and behave as if it were uttered in the first context and meaning is to commit a logical error.
That doesn't mean that either definition is wrong. It means that to behave as if those definitions are equivalent and to shift definitions in mid-sentence is wrong.
quote:
science literally translates from Latin(rough Latin) "to know" and what you said seems to confirm it are you going to tell a Christian that no one saw Jesus ever or that it was never whitnessed?
Non sequitur.
How does one get from:
"Science" meaning "knowledge" is not equivalent to "science" meaning "systematized method of inquiry into physical phenomena"
To:
Christians are hallucinating.
I don't see it. Could you please explain how you jumped from how "science" in the former doesn't mean "science" in the latter and that it is illogical to try and equate the two to talking about whether or not anybody saw Jesus?
quote:
I think not!
Why not? I do, actually. There is no evidence that anybody ever saw Jesus outside of a single book written by people who themselves didn't see Jesus and compiled by a group of people whose agenda required people to believe in this Jesus fellow.
quote:
so observation?
Yes. Observation shows us that there is no reliable evidence that anybody ever observed Jesus.
quote:
now Unfortunately people seem to think science is clean cut thats it.
Now you've committed another logical error of changing the subject...actually, it's a compound logical error of changing the subject and equivocation.
The fact that people have acquired a philosophy whereby they do not believe in anything that can't be "scientifically shown" does not mean that science actually requires that.
Again, in the context of science, "science" means a method of investigating physical phenomena. That doesn't mean that everything is amenable to scientific investigation.
For example, science can tell you all about the physical aspects of a sound wave. It can give you its frequency, it's amplitude, it's structure, periodicity, etc.
What it can't tell you is whether or not it is music.
So if your beef is with philosophy, stop picking on science. Science is not philosophy. Science can't tell you how to feel.
quote:
but its not so yes Christianity would be a science because science is based mostly on theory itself so even if it can't be confirmed its still and idea or a theory
See, you just did it again. You've equivocated the word "theory."
Here we go back to Merriam-Webster:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Now, you seem to think that "theory" means something in definitions 2, 4, 6a, or 6b in every single situation.
But that simply isn't true. In science, a "theory" means definitions 1, 3, 5, and 6c.
Question: Do you think there is any speculation involved in the germ "theory" of disease?
How about the photon "theory" of light?
Quantum "theory"?
Gravitational "theory"? Do you seriously think that if you were to step off of the top of the Empire State Building, you might not plummet to the ground simply because gravity is "only a theory"?
You are trying to redefine "white" as "black" based on the logic that a "little white lie" is still a lie which is a "black mark" upon someone's soul and thus we are justified in saying that the bride looked beautiful in her "black" dress.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 12:41 AM DC85 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 5 of 23 (39245)
05-07-2003 12:09 PM


ok you got me on certain things of definitions.
all those theorys Wouldn't theorys if they where 100% proven.
ok your this with gravity is wrong! there is no "Gravitational theory" once it is proven it becomes a Law of science so there you have it Newtons law(not theory) so you my friend are mistaken a theory is something that can still be disproved.... though with many its unlikely
[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-07-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2003 1:01 PM DC85 has not replied
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2003 10:55 AM DC85 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 23 (39250)
05-07-2003 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by DC85
05-07-2003 12:09 PM


Newton's "law"
There are two theory's of gravity, newton's and Einsteins. Newton's is wrong (at some extreme's) and there is a chance Einsteins is too.
"Newton's law" is usually not considered to be his ideas about gravity but rather about force and motion. They are wrong too.
"Law", it seems to me, was used rather freely a century or two ago. They are usually rather simple, single statments of relationships, Boyle's law for example. You make it sound like they are the big deal. It is the theory that is the big deal in science. It is the large over reaching explanation for a large number of observations and laws even. The atomic theory of matter explans Boyle's law forexample.
No theory will be 100% proven unless it is a mathematical theorem.
I'm afraid you have the whole thing all bolluxed up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 12:09 PM DC85 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 23 (39256)
05-07-2003 2:17 PM


there are facts of science we know a frog sings(crocs) to attactt a mate so there are facts of science but if science trully is based on theory that would also make most religons science wouldn't it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by compmage, posted 05-07-2003 3:12 PM DC85 has not replied
 Message 9 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-07-2003 3:18 PM DC85 has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 8 of 23 (39262)
05-07-2003 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DC85
05-07-2003 2:17 PM


DC85 writes:
here are facts of science we know a frog sings(crocs) to attactt a mate so there are facts of science
The sort of things you are talking about here are facts in that they have been observed and are used as evidence when construction or evaluating scientific theories.
In this sense evolution a fact (it has been observed). The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the facts of evolution. It does this extremely well.
DC85 writes:
but if science trully is based on theory that would also make most religons science wouldn't it?
You are equivocating again. Religions are theories in the sense of speculation or guesses. Scientific theories are theories in the sense of interpritive frameworks that explain existing data and make predictions that can be tested experimentally. Not only that, but a scientific theory has to better explain the data than the current lt accepted theory.
In all honesty, comparing religious theories with scientific theories is like comparing the performance of a bicycle with two flat tyres to that of a Ferrari.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 2:17 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (39264)
05-07-2003 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DC85
05-07-2003 2:17 PM


there are facts of science we know a frog sings(crocs) to attactt a mate so there are facts of science
While that is a fact, it isn't a 100% certainty. After all... your whole reality could be based on one really weird acid trip. However, we can know something to such a degree of certainty that it would be silly to think otherwise.
if science trully is based on theory that would also make most religons science wouldn't it?
This is a logical fallicy, because one thing isn't "x" doesn't mean that an unrelated thing is "x."
First of all, science is science. Science is the pursuit of truth through observations and experimentation (my definition). Do keep in mind that science is a house of cards, every observation every conclusion is based on some other well proven data. This shows us that we can not "prove" anything through the means of science with 100% certainty. We can only fail to disprove theories. However, like I said earlier, science can prove something so well that it would be silly to think otherwise. For example, just because we haven't 'proven' the theory of gravity, doesn't mean that I'm going to jump off the top of a building and float into outerspace.
Religion and any other type of metaphysics are based on the deductive thought process. Science is inductive. Religion by definition of the way it seeks truth cannot be called science.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 2:17 PM DC85 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 10 of 23 (39285)
05-07-2003 6:34 PM


religions are widely believed if it can't be proven does it make it false?? or does it make it an idea?
(I am trying not to offend anyone) taking it as the stories in the bible and other books are nothing but made up.
at the time they where written and when knowledge was low was it not an educated guess? and it still can't be disproved nor can it be proven still today.......
[This message has been edited by DC85, 05-07-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 05-07-2003 6:56 PM DC85 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 23 (39288)
05-07-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DC85
05-07-2003 6:34 PM


Since all knowledge is imperfect, and any given theory cannot be 100% "proven" through induction, we therefore judge theories about the universe based on how much data they're able to explain.
At the time the Bible was written, the stories/theories in the Bible answered most people's questions. But as technology increased, and new data about the universe was brought forward, the Biblical models lacked the explanatory power to deal with that data.
That's how science works. When new data is revealed we adapt our models to fit. A lot of the time, certain data that we can't observe yet is even predicted by our theory. If and when that data is observed (though new technology, experiments, or even just being in the right place at the right time) we tend to feel that our theory has been "confirmed". Not proven, of course - but the theory has demonstrated that it has explanitory power.
So, to answer your question, the reason that Biblical models about the world aren't really scientific anymore is because there's a lot of data that they just can't explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 6:34 PM DC85 has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 12 of 23 (39314)
05-07-2003 9:35 PM


so at one point the Bible could have well been considered science........... ok As I stated earlier I am an Evolutioniest and a creationiest. which means I have very little faith in the Bible.
I was just wondering basicly I guess what make science science. thanks for your help guys.
back on the main subject of this topic.
if people can make up fairy tales and legands why not the Bible?
I mean Man wrote the Bible not God so how can we have Faith in Such a thing? I would like to hear your thoughts on this. (I do believe in God)

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 05-13-2003 10:28 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 23 (39385)
05-08-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by DC85
05-07-2003 12:09 PM


DC85 responds to me:
quote:
all those theorys Wouldn't theorys if they where 100% proven.
But nothing in science is ever "100% proven."
You didn't answer my question, though:
Do you think that there is any speculation about the germ "theory" of disease? We can actually watch bacteria reproduce. We can actually watch virsues infect cells.
Do you seriously claim that there is some speculation about disease being caused by bacteria and viruses simply because it is the germ "theory" of disease?
quote:
ok your this with gravity is wrong! there is no "Gravitational theory" once it is proven it becomes a Law of science so there you have it Newtons law(not theory) so you my friend are mistaken a theory is something that can still be disproved.... though with many its unlikely
Incorrect. A theory never "becomes a law." A law is nothing more than a pithy way, usually mathematically, of expressing on observational result.
And yes, it is Newton's "theory." You are forgetting that at the time that Newton was writing, everything was called a "law" due to the predominant paradigm of the mechanical universe. If I recall the specific scientist correctly, it was Newton that said that if he had a list of all the objects in the universe at the beginning of creation, then he could plot out the entire physical course of every single object in the universe.
Well, he was wrong. There's this thing called "quantum dynamics" which shows that some things behave randomly and are not subject to linear effects.
In fact, that precious "law of gravity" you so worship seems to be wrong. The Pioneer space probes are leaving the solar system at speeds inconsistent with what would be expected given our understanding of gravitational theory.
If a "law" is something that is "100% proven," why is it that we can find the laws to be wrong?
In science, a theory is the epitome of results. There is nothing higher than the theory. It is the end result of a long line of research and experimentation.
Simply put, you do not understand scientific terminology. A "law" is not something that is "100% proven" and a "theory" is not an "educated guess."
Now, answer the questions:
Do you think there is any speculation about the germ "theory" of disease?
The photon "theory" of light?
Quantum "theory"?
Do you seriously think that you wouldn't fall off the top of the Empire State Building if you stepped off because gravity is "only a theory"?
By the way...there are laws in evolutionary theory, too.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by DC85, posted 05-07-2003 12:09 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2003 11:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 14 of 23 (39395)
05-08-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rrhain
05-08-2003 10:55 AM


Rhain,
I had mentioned on THIS board that perhaps a virus is an ABSOLUTE charge carrier. Faraday had discounted the existence of such even though he looked for years for if it exist but he did not have a look in a virus.
IF and it is only "if" this is true (we do not know) then there IS and WOULD be more "speculation" about germ "theory" of disease. I also spoke about the information content in a rock being an amount larger than a virus. All of these thing would THEN need to be worked up but there is no need NOW as we have not information as to the truth vaule of such statements such as mine or other people here as they have made.
Why not simply take on BOSCOVISH's "theory" as the 'mechancial' "paradigm" but use not NEWTON dynamically but PASCAL's seperation of geometry, mechanics and Arithemetic. It seems that most of the c/e disputes about "words" devolves into a confusion of how to "see" extensions of geometry which may or may not overlap increases by arithemetic. That is all. God Bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2003 10:55 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 15 of 23 (39749)
05-11-2003 6:15 PM


there is no "germ theory" its pretty much proven bacteria and vireses are what makes it happen regardless of how it happens (might be a carrier)

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2003 6:26 PM DC85 has not replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2003 6:38 PM DC85 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