Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: B-Chan
You have done a long, and thankfully polite and reasoned post. I appreciate that.

It all boils down to one thing. I prefer to do science, and argue from the rules and evidence of science. I am not arguing "Truth" but rather what can be perceived by the senses and deduced from logic.

You appear to believe in something outside of science, "Truth" or the equivalent. That's fine, but its not science.

You write,

Your criterion for "truth" seems to be "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True". Unfortunately for you, however, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is itself not demonstrable via the scientific method.

That might be true if I were seeking "Truth." I will leave that to philosophers and theologians. I prefer data and well-supported theories. Show me the evidence and we can go from there.

You continue:

Therefore, your own definition of Truth is self-refuting and meaningless. You may believe that only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True, but you cannot demonstrate the truth of that statement via the scientific method; therefore, the statement "only those statements demonstrable via the scientific method are True" is a statement of faith, not of objective truth.

You are arguing for religion or philosophy here. I have proposed no definition of "Truth." There is no quest for "Truth" in science. "Truth" is not something that can be verified by observation; it is based on belief.

Science seeks to work with facts, and to organize those facts with hypotheses, then theories. Hypotheses seek to organize the multitudes of facts; when a hypothesis has matured, and withstood the tests of data and time, and shown that it can make accurate predictions, it can be classified as a theory. Not "Truth," but a well-supported theory.

And this is where your argument breaks down. I need not take anything on faith. Science works with facts and theories--things that can be observed and documented.

Philosophy and religion rely on faith because their subject matter can't be observed and documented.

This is where we begin to part company.

The rest of your post deals with your personal beliefs, which I choose not to dispute.

90 posted on 05/22/2007 7:36:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: Coyoteman
Philosophy and religion rely on faith because their subject matter can't be observed and documented.

Much of the subject matter can be observed and documented; but not reproducibly, and not in a way which lends itself to experimentation...(e.g. it is "historical" and cannot be reproduced any more than we can experiment with the old battles--as the old Saturday Night Live skit, "What if Napoleon had had a B-52 at Waterloo?")

Given the difficulties, and the number of varying creeds out there, the easiest response is the null hypothesis.

Cheers!

123 posted on 05/25/2007 10:23:01 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson