![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
![]() |
#31 | ||||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada
Posts: 77
|
![]()
Greeting again Starboy
Quote:
Am I correct to observe that you equate the existence of authority with the creation of dogma? Quote:
Quote:
How do you know there is no contradictory evidence? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would suggest your observation about the unstated idea is absolutely correct. Is dogma …I don’t want to use the word bad? I would rather ask what are its effects upon people? I am having real difficulty perceiving that there is any such thing as dogma that does not take away from people in one way or another. Calvan |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]() Quote:
Starboy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 56
|
![]()
The point is that a scientific hypothesis is formulated based on available observations and states what sort of new observations will support it or disprove it. The hypothesis of divine intervention isn't based on any current observations (the Bible and faith in God don't count) and it offers no way to be supported or disproven. My problem with divine intervention isn't that no evidence has been seen for it, its that no evidence can be seen AGAINST it. What good is a theory if it can never be proven wrong. This aspect makes it pseudoscience.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]() Quote:
To me Calvan it appears that you use the word dogma to evaluative whereas I use it to describe, as such for you “them’s fightin words” and for me it is just a word that happens to fit, what is important is the idea and meaning not the social connotation, unless of course your intent is to be controversial. Starboy |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]() Quote:
How could you not see that science is dogmatic? BTW, I see nothing wrong with that. If it works don't fix it! Starboy [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p> |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,635
|
![]() Quote:
The long history of establishing the existence of things that were not previously observable makes a failure to acknowledge that some unobserved things must exist an irrational position. In fact many unobserved phenomenon have been all but proven to exist (e.g. dinasours) by making logical inferences from evidence we can observe (e.g., fossils). Science requires only that the validity of an idea be judged by its ability to explain and predict what we can verify via the senses. This rule is not dogma. It exists simply b/c to date, no one has ever made a sound logical argument that there can be any other means to verify induced ideas about the world. Nothing in that requirement even suggests that one must believe unobserved phenomenon do not exist. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,635
|
![]() Quote:
Fortunately for science, nothing in the philosophy, methods, or practice of science suggests such a conclusion or even assumes it to be true. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
![]()
Doubtingt & Starboy,
From a reader's point of view, it seems your disagreement is merely a matter of semantics. Starboy says science dismisses unobservable phenomena. This is true. Theists who claim that divine beings are a priori unobservable are making a fundamentally non-scientific claim, unless they can provide some other reliable method of divine observation. doubtingt says science cannot dismiss unobserved phenomena. This is also true, for reasons you have already provided. |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
![]()
doubtingt & Philosoft,
Please, do not get me wrong. IMO, all that is known or could ever be known, even if it is never discovered, by science, will always be natural. That is the dogma I am refering to. To use a glib marketing phrase "Science is all natural." Starboy |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 4,635
|
![]() Quote:
Some examples include: "From a scientific point of view there is no such thing as the unobservable world" "To science, anything that can't be measured or observed just doesn't exist." These statements are false for reasons I have pointed out. This is an important point b/c Starboy correctly argues that such a claim is dogmatic b/c it cannot be rationally supported and can only be accepted on authority. It is equally dogmatic to say that "UnobservABLE phenomenon do not exist." These ideas represent a very common misconception about science and many students I've encountered resist science b/c they hold such a misconception and conclude that science is being close minded and dogmatic. The fact is that science merely places empirical boundaries on the claims that can be verified. It is and must be agnostic about any claim that cannot be directly (or indirectly) verified with observations. Science does not claim the unobservable doesn't exist. Science claims that the propositions that have no observable implications cannot be verified as either true or false. These positions are fundamentally different. The latter is defensible on rational grounds, thus not an unquestionable authoritative and dogmatic tenet. |
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|