What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)

If you have complaints of this nature please keep them out of the discussion threads. They belong over at Windsor castle.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Let's leave issues of honesty aside. If at the end of the day the participants in this discussion, their position having failed to carry the day, merely claim the other side wasn't being honest, then there's no point to this discussion. Proper substitutes would be terms like objectively, accurately, rationally, logically, etc.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please just post a link. If you would like something made available at the EvC website, please email it to me at Admin and I will post it so you can link to it in messages.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I take seriously my responsibility to maintain a high level of quality in the science forums, so I feel I have to step in.When two people involved in a discussion get so into it that it is difficult for others to follow, that's regrettable but probably can't be helped. But when there's a two person discussion that not even the participants understand, then it's time to step in.I understand the purpose of this thread to be for Rob to explain his ideas about the nature of science to Straggler in a way that can be comprehended and understood. In such an endeavor both sides have a responsibility, in this case for Rob to present his ideas clearly, and for Straggler to provide insight and feedback about those ideas, as well as helping Rob at crafting clear explanations of any points or line of reasoning.I've read Rob's piece (Science is the application of the Law of Contradiction). Rob seems to believe that his conception of science is rational and explained clearly, and he can't understand why Straggler is having difficulty understanding the ideas. My own assessment is that it contains the naive ideas of someone with little to no scientific experience, and that Rob should take this as an opportunity to improve it by giving it substance and clarity.Rob's piece is actually excellent through the first four paragraphs, but then it completely falls apart in the fifth and never recovers. That paragraph opens like this: Coherence is the authority that founds science?And coherence is the revelation provided by the scientific method?This is just gobbledygook to me, and unless Rob can begin clearly explaining what look like at best nebulous ideas and at worst nonsense, I can't see this thread making any progress. His piece gets worse further on where he begins talking about God and tearing into methodological naturalism.Sorry to throw everything on you, Rob, but they're your ideas, and you have to help people understand them before they can be discussed. Just telling people how clear and simple your ideas are isn't going to accomplish this.And Straggler, a sorry for you, too. I know you didn't ask for this, but hang in there. Let me know if I can provide any additional help, or if this isn't actually helpful let me know that, too, though like I said, I feel I have a responsibility to keep discussion, if you'll forgive the word, coherent.And another sorry for you Rob. I know it must seem to you like moderation is taking sides, but science does already have a definition, you know. I'm not siding with science but with rationality by not defining our words to mean whatever we want them to mean. I'd side with the Christians if some evolutionist started trying to redefine Christianity (actually, I did side with the Christians when Jar and Ringo attempted this a couple years ago, claiming that evangelicalism did not include the concept of original sin). I think you'd be much better served arguing that science is misconstrued as currently constructed, rather than arguing that it is something it very clearly is not.Edited by Admin, : Minor correction.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The approach you originally outlined for yourself seems fine, but it takes two to tango. Rob has to be willing to explore his ideas with you. Maybe Rob has some ideas of his own about how to proceed from here, we'll wait and see.By the way, Rob's position has a parallel in the history of science, if I understand what he's saying (which is definitely an iffy proposition). It was at one time believed that the proper practice of science should refrain from examining the natural world and should instead employ reflection and logic to figure out the world's true nature. Maybe it was a branch of Greek thought?Edited by Admin, : Fix typos.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Rob,As you know, I object to the promotion of nonsense here at EvC Forum, hence I'm going to respond to a couple things you say. Are you daft? This thread is unintelligible. The power of one's ideas is not governed by the determination with which they are held but by their ability to persuade others, and to do that one must first render them intelligible to others. You've accomplished neither intelligibility nor persuasion.I suggest you return and work in a sincere fashion to mold your ideas into intelligible form.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm poking my nose in again, this time because I see a strong disconnect between Straggler's posts and your responses. I think Straggler's idea of an example of how you would apply your methodology is a good one. You could use Straggler's wall outlet example or create your own.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Okay, let's let Straggler have a look at your example. It isn't what you think of how you're doing that counts, but how others think you're doing. Most of your contributions here have been unintelligible, and why you think you're doing so well is I'm sure a mystery to everyone. This is already the second time in this thread where you've become reluctant to engage the discussion, and if you stop now I don't think anyone will have any idea what you've been on about. Anyway, please quit quitting, quit declaring how wonderful you're doing, and start focusing on the discussion.Please, no replies to this message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well, Rob, I guess this is goodbye again for another 24 hours. Next time when I say, "Please, no replies," assume I mean it.I am moderating this discussion, not participating.About this: What you said in Message 70 was: That's sarcasm, Rob, not praise. I'm adding another 24 hours to your suspension.When you return please constructively engage the discussion.AbE: Please, no replies to this message.Edited by Admin, : Add request for no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Rob,This is the second time you've made yourself inactive in this discussion. It isn't right to engage someone's effort and attention and then turn your back. Twice. I'll wait a couple days for you to restore yourself to active status and resume the discussion, after which I'll make the suspension permanent.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If Rob decides to reengage the discussion I think that he should be permitted the opportunity to provide an illustration of how he would apply his definition of science, but using an example where the conclusions are obvious to everyone. Your power outlet example was of just this nature, since no matter how you approached the problem, once all the evidence was available the conclusion was eminently sensible.By using an example with an obvious outcome Rob should be able to highlight his definition of science and not have it overshadowed by some controversial topic. One interpretation of your most recent rebuttal is that it showed Rob's conclusions about intelligent design wrong, but not necessarily Rob's proposed definition of science.It is in everyone's best interest to have the best method possible for figuring out the nature of the universe. We should all be on the same side.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Guys, lets get on-topic.To Rob:No Bible quoting. This is a science thread.You said you were going to provide an example as per my request, but there was no example, just more argument. You don't have to use Straggler's power outlet example, but you should use something equally simple with an equally obvious outcome so that it is your scientific process that is the focus and not the example itself.To Straggler:Let's keep it civil and impersonal.To you both:Please, no replies to this message.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Really. Interesting. See you in a week.AbE: If you go inactive again it'll become permanent.Edited by Admin, : Add comment.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Interesting. You just posted a link to a Bible study webpage in a science discussion in which the moderator, myself, has requested you not mix science and religion, and in which you've just returned from a one week suspension for doing the same thing.See you in four weeks.If and when you return, would you please post a simple example with obvious conclusions that illustrates your approach to science and how it differs from the standard definition.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Ken,This is a 2-person debate between Straggler and Rob. Rob has been temporarily suspended for persistent violations of the Forum Guidelines. Posting for him in a restricted thread is also a violation of the Forum Guidelines.You and Rob are now both permanently suspended.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director