![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Edinburgh. Scotland
Posts: 2,532
|
![]()
It depends how you take the original claim.
Quote:
Sure I can operate in the world on a day to day basis without using 'science'. But if I'm going to understand the natural world I'm living science is the way to do it. And even on a day to day basis I use methodological naturalism and empirical experience, the cornerstones of science. It may be fast and loose but I still utilise a version of the scientific method all the time. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Median strip of DC beltway
Posts: 1,888
|
![]()
It's been said already, but I'll put my spin on it. What you described is a trivial conclusion you made based upon empirical observation and the presumption of naturalistic causes. It's trivialized science, much the same as 1+1=2 is trivialized math or "See spot run" is trivialized literature.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 4,679
|
![]()
Is science able to proof its own reliability?
If it can, we then have a meta-science to show the validity of science; but then we would need a meta-meta-science, ad infinitum. If not, then on what basis is science's claim to reality or truth? |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 1,677
|
![]() Quote:
What is the basis for science's claim to effectiveness? Results. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 4,679
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore... Quote:
Please don't misinterpret my questions. I'm not anti-science. My all time non-fiction book is "The Demon Haunted World." I just believe we need to examine everything we believe for all the consequences that the beliefs entail. If science is not subject to it's own tests, why is it so special? |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
|
![]()
xianseeker:
Quote:
weather forecasting. Need I go on? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 4,679
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Futhermore, for primitive societies that do not concern themselves with technology, the sciences are not reflections or even approximations of reality until a need arises that the technology/science will fill. In effect, the science is created again to meets the needs of that culture. [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: xianseeker ]</p> |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
|
![]()
Yeah, so? I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
As Galiel said: Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eastern Massachusetts
Posts: 1,677
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Please respond to what I actually post, rather than restating it incorrectly and then responding to what you created. [quote]<strong>This sounds like the anti-evolutionists claiming that evolution shouldn't be taught in school because it's only a theory. </strong>[quote] No, you sound like those who seek to claim that science is a religion because it states ifferutable doctrine. Quote:
Theories are never "verified" (from the root veritas, "truth"). Evidence continues to corroborate a theory, which justifies its persistence. If a theory were fact, there would be no need to continue to perform experimentation and observation in order to corroborate it, would there? Once again, you invent imaginary dragons, attempt to slay them with your theoretical light-saber, and proclaim, "I've rescued the maiden!" Quote:
Quote:
This is the very antithesis of science. If you support it, you are, in fact, anti-science. Quote:
2) Science does not claim to be "so special". Science is not a "Saturday-Night Live!" parody of a gay interior decorator. Advocates of the scientific method merely claim that it is effective, in fact, the by FAR the most effective way to derive a practical understanding of reality which, however partial and incomplete, nonetheless has proven its utility to better the human condition. Or, as I said initially, a point you selectively chose not to challenge, science bases its claim to be effective on its "RESULTS". [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p> |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Median strip of DC beltway
Posts: 1,888
|
![]() Quote:
And the results are measured by a pragmatic standard-- if it accomplishes the needs (predictive/explanatory), then it's the truth. How is this not a pragmatic measure? |
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|