I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind
The basics. Start simple, from the top. Don't preach. My first question is, what is the scientific method?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElRengo · 70-79, M
To believe whatever you believe is within your rights.
So I´m not even trying to change your mind.
And I´ll make a very preliminary approach to your "first question" from a top down view as unrelated to other potrential debates.
Method is one needed tool of Science and as other of it´s (also needed) contributing aspects do not define Science by itself (it´s said "needed but not enough").
BTW there is not an only one scientific method.
The confussion about comes from some schools of thought that equates Science mainly with prove what is "known" or believed by other not enterely scientific ways (like ie Popper).
Few scientists think that way.
Being Science mainly research about it´s propper "object" (the natural material world) the specificity of each aspect of such object doesn´t allow only one method.
Just look at the geocentric Ptolemaic system.
It was based in rigurous observation of repetitive "phenomena".
It had a sophisticated mathematical formulation.
It was predictive.
It was useful (navigation and other practices).
AND was ontologically and causally wrong.
Why?
Cos it´s "object" were not a system of material entities, but a phenomenological construct.
Galileo´s one also needed method and observation.
But WHAT to observe had another focus.
The one that makes Science be.
So I know I´m not answering in a way related to your creationist believes nor debating them.
But for the self restricted scope of Science your worries are not mainly wrong or right but a non necessary hiypothesis.
So I´m not even trying to change your mind.
And I´ll make a very preliminary approach to your "first question" from a top down view as unrelated to other potrential debates.
Method is one needed tool of Science and as other of it´s (also needed) contributing aspects do not define Science by itself (it´s said "needed but not enough").
BTW there is not an only one scientific method.
The confussion about comes from some schools of thought that equates Science mainly with prove what is "known" or believed by other not enterely scientific ways (like ie Popper).
Few scientists think that way.
Being Science mainly research about it´s propper "object" (the natural material world) the specificity of each aspect of such object doesn´t allow only one method.
Just look at the geocentric Ptolemaic system.
It was based in rigurous observation of repetitive "phenomena".
It had a sophisticated mathematical formulation.
It was predictive.
It was useful (navigation and other practices).
AND was ontologically and causally wrong.
Why?
Cos it´s "object" were not a system of material entities, but a phenomenological construct.
Galileo´s one also needed method and observation.
But WHAT to observe had another focus.
The one that makes Science be.
So I know I´m not answering in a way related to your creationist believes nor debating them.
But for the self restricted scope of Science your worries are not mainly wrong or right but a non necessary hiypothesis.
1-25 of 30
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo The problem with 'science' is the fact that it is not very scientific. It operates from an a priori belief system. It is quite religious and rejects any potential that doesn't agree with its faith.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
You don´t seem too familiar whith the scientific practice, at least from what you are saying here and now.
Of course all approaches have some assumtions, what you may call a "worldview".
The historical one of Science is not based in rejecting other believes as long there is no colliding overlap with the self restricted object of Science: the natural material world.
What is an historical fact is that while the intents of previous approaches were tied to "First Philosophies" they never provided something of some value in that specific domain.
Science became to be Science (and make better bets on that specific / restricted domain) SINCE and no earlier than when also became what once was called Natural History of things and not under the authority / approval of other "schools of thought".
Maybe one not so bad example about is the quote attributed to Galileo.
"Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven not how the heavens go".
Best wishes to you.
You don´t seem too familiar whith the scientific practice, at least from what you are saying here and now.
Of course all approaches have some assumtions, what you may call a "worldview".
The historical one of Science is not based in rejecting other believes as long there is no colliding overlap with the self restricted object of Science: the natural material world.
What is an historical fact is that while the intents of previous approaches were tied to "First Philosophies" they never provided something of some value in that specific domain.
Science became to be Science (and make better bets on that specific / restricted domain) SINCE and no earlier than when also became what once was called Natural History of things and not under the authority / approval of other "schools of thought".
Maybe one not so bad example about is the quote attributed to Galileo.
"Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven not how the heavens go".
Best wishes to you.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo I am much better informed about science than you are. The fact is that science will never accept God or the concept of God. That is their religious belief. When I was doing science I fell out of favour because I came to doubt science's most basic belief. I came to think that there might actually be a God. Working as I was in design engineering I came to realize that the physica. complexity of any life form precluded an 'accident' such as held as foundational faith to 'science'.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
I didn´t made assumptions about your education and neither about your experience.
I´ve said that your specific post is not a near to good description of the views of the scientific community and even less that their research practice.
(The " I am much better informed about science than you are" is a bit speculative)
And what you posted now reinforce what I´ve said.
Atheism is not a basic believe of Science.
Moreover, most of scientists though not all have their own (various) faiths.
What they do not is have the need to validate their faiths and neither their research as only some branches of theological though do, in a textual revelation about also the natural world.
And BTW, the opposite of chance is not design.
That´s what is called the fallacy of false dilemma.
And of course, what you call ´science" is, you like it or not, just Science.
I didn´t made assumptions about your education and neither about your experience.
I´ve said that your specific post is not a near to good description of the views of the scientific community and even less that their research practice.
(The " I am much better informed about science than you are" is a bit speculative)
And what you posted now reinforce what I´ve said.
Atheism is not a basic believe of Science.
Moreover, most of scientists though not all have their own (various) faiths.
What they do not is have the need to validate their faiths and neither their research as only some branches of theological though do, in a textual revelation about also the natural world.
And BTW, the opposite of chance is not design.
That´s what is called the fallacy of false dilemma.
And of course, what you call ´science" is, you like it or not, just Science.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Science haves no focus and no goal in refuting and neither proving God.
Not in it´s scope.
And is neither a needed hypotesis about it´s propper specific domain.
Some scientists (in fact a lot, may be most of them) believe in God.
Or in some other supernatural believe.
Others don´t.
That dont´prevent them to research and get the provisional approaches to describe the natural world as they do.
And as theological thought[i] when about the same domain[/i] never contributed.
Science haves no focus and no goal in refuting and neither proving God.
Not in it´s scope.
And is neither a needed hypotesis about it´s propper specific domain.
Some scientists (in fact a lot, may be most of them) believe in God.
Or in some other supernatural believe.
Others don´t.
That dont´prevent them to research and get the provisional approaches to describe the natural world as they do.
And as theological thought[i] when about the same domain[/i] never contributed.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo So is it the business of science to talk incessantly about evolution as the genesis of everything we see and observe?
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Scientists don´t talk so much as you suggest but seriously research.
Evolution is not the description of the genesis but the material mechanism of speciation.
You still try to equate Science with atheism.
Just another rethoric resource, a weak one.
Scientists don´t talk so much as you suggest but seriously research.
Evolution is not the description of the genesis but the material mechanism of speciation.
You still try to equate Science with atheism.
Just another rethoric resource, a weak one.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
And yes, the "bussines" of Science is the material world.
And yes, the "bussines" of Science is the material world.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Your though about keeps being biased.
Scientists don´t think they know an Ultimate Truth.
They research for the best inference in a restricted domain, a one that can be refined and eventually refuted.
Your own specific branch of believe (that is not even what happens with all or most believers) can´t say the same.
Perhaps that´s why never made a significative contribution to a serious description of nature.
Your though about keeps being biased.
Scientists don´t think they know an Ultimate Truth.
They research for the best inference in a restricted domain, a one that can be refined and eventually refuted.
Your own specific branch of believe (that is not even what happens with all or most believers) can´t say the same.
Perhaps that´s why never made a significative contribution to a serious description of nature.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Sorry, you are assuming too much.
I´m not atheist and there goes your argument.
As much as fails to equate Science with atheism and to equate your specific way of believe with the opposite.
Where ever you had been that don´t makes you the ultimate voice about.
As much as my neither my experiences do it for me.
Is not about individuals.
That "science is a dead end. It provides nothing of import"........well........if that´s the best you can say.....be happy with it.
Once more, best wishes to you.
Sorry, you are assuming too much.
I´m not atheist and there goes your argument.
As much as fails to equate Science with atheism and to equate your specific way of believe with the opposite.
Where ever you had been that don´t makes you the ultimate voice about.
As much as my neither my experiences do it for me.
Is not about individuals.
That "science is a dead end. It provides nothing of import"........well........if that´s the best you can say.....be happy with it.
Once more, best wishes to you.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
Idolatry is well described as making something on your own and call it God.
That´s how it looks like your argumentation.
I´m not making any theologic specific claim nor debating faith.
Not mine, not yours.
Idolatry is well described as making something on your own and call it God.
That´s how it looks like your argumentation.
I´m not making any theologic specific claim nor debating faith.
Not mine, not yours.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
I don´t make an idol of Science and scientists don´t claim to have an ultimate nothing.
And with no absolutes they still do better informed bets than others.
So once more, find more solid ways to make a critic than to attribute to something a quality of your imagination.
I don´t make an idol of Science and scientists don´t claim to have an ultimate nothing.
And with no absolutes they still do better informed bets than others.
So once more, find more solid ways to make a critic than to attribute to something a quality of your imagination.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo And yet you are defending science like it is a god worthy of consulting about the big issues in life.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
There are some millions that recognice God as their faith in a way no less convinced than yours while do not need to agree with you about Science.
You may say that they are the wrong ones.
Hubris.
There are thousand of scientists with faiths or none and they converge about and within the propper domain of Science.
Once more..........
"Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven not how the heavens go".
There are some millions that recognice God as their faith in a way no less convinced than yours while do not need to agree with you about Science.
You may say that they are the wrong ones.
Hubris.
There are thousand of scientists with faiths or none and they converge about and within the propper domain of Science.
Once more..........
"Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven not how the heavens go".
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@ElRengo Well you god says that In the beginning was nothing and nothing existed for a very long time until for no reason or purpose whatsoever nothing exploded and became everything. Then some time later again for no reason or purpose some bits of everything got together and made dinosaurs.
ElRengo · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955
I don´t pretend to be the voice of God. What is evident is that you neither are.
You are still going round same fallacy (false dilemma)
Causation is not "reason" and the opposite of randomness is not a priori purpose.
Be well.
I don´t pretend to be the voice of God. What is evident is that you neither are.
You are still going round same fallacy (false dilemma)
Causation is not "reason" and the opposite of randomness is not a priori purpose.
Be well.
1-25 of 30