Uh, ok...
Posted on 02/02/2013 9:30:30 AM PST by bray
More cow-bell...
What do you own?
is there any truth?
Or is it all relative?
Dude - put down the bong and back away from the computer. Go watch TeeVee for a while or maybe get something to eat...
That's the so-called scientific method -- which is a terrible name, not because it doesn't work but because it encourages the mistaken belief that anything that does not use it is not a science. The intro to the wikipedia article says the following:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained (see History and philosophy below).This is indicative of either (a) what linguistics would call drift, or (b) the same systematic redefinition of words to control thoughts that the liberal/progressive/asshats employ: "winning the battlefield by controlling the language."
There is no real reason to discard the older definition [underlined] should be discarded in favor of the new [italicized]; and, indeed, a lot of damage can be done by trying to do so -- if mathematics is not a science then how can science use its branches (logic) or techniques (deduction, induction, etc)... indeed how can something be falsifiable [by science] when you reject from 'science' the mechanisms of reasoning?
Also, as a counter-example of math not having predictability and (and even falsifiability) I would submit the very computer you are using -- for the very software it runs bridges the gap of mathematics's specifications to the program which is the implementation. -- I am a Computer Scientist, and I can reason about a program proving and disproving attributes and situations [debugging].
Uh, ok...
No.
unlike you, I can actually understand what I read.
It’s called “Comprehension”
I, unlike you, will not be told what to believe.
I have no peer pressure.
Words actually have meaning.
Whether they appear in a scientific journal or on this website.
Please, help me out, use your scientific materialism to find logic.
Can you find it without logic?
Dang. It was pretty cool...
turns everything upside down
What guarantee can you give us that there are no guarantees?
Do you have proof that there are no proofs?
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
Can you more clearly explicate the scientific method as it relates to science? Some of the scientific historical sciences (geology, anthropology, even biology) are abductive in their pronouncements. Given your pronouncements of no guarantees, no proofs, and no absolutes, your a priori certitude and your devotion to methodological naturalism there are several concepts you must struggle (in vain) with, such as abstract invarient universal entities, consciousness, mathemathics, reason, logic, rational thought and first offer an epistemilogical explaination in a physicalists' worldview.
For example I would ask you if you believe the brain and our noetic faculties must operate normatively in order to in order for homo sapien to truthfully analyze the observations of the universe. Darwin asked this in a different way when he said, "Why would anyone believe a chimpanzee would give rise to a brain (noetic apparatus) with convictions that are true?"
A simple question which I would ask you is this: Do you know it is true that evolution accounts for life on earth?
really ?
are you for real on any level?
WTF?
Very well stated.
What is astounding to me is the extents at which folks go to deny there our nature.
Well done. That one is going to be hard to dismiss with some two bit cliche.
Pray for America
Please forgive my very poorly written comment.
While awaiting stormers reply
I’d like to tell about Texas Radio and the Big Beat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MbXcef8JQY
If naturalism (methodological, metaphysical) is true, there is no God, it becomes impossible to account for any invarient, abstract, universal entity. What shall stormer answer,...No, the brain does not have operate normatively in order for cognitive functions to be reliable. If yes, then the physicalist must explain how that might occur. If, no, then there is an admission that normative cognitive function is not required to analyze for truth, the observations of the universe....and therefore we have no reason to rely on any observation and analyze for truth. Darwin said natural selection only selects for behaviors, not beliefs. If that is true, can any belief held, such as, 'we rely on logic and reason to implement scientific method'. Under those circumstances, any finding by scientific method are arbitrary and caprcious and there is no reason be believe that the applied logic can be trusted. No, the scientist has presuppositional committments just as the theist does. The difference is the theist can account for those metaphysical entities and those abstract entities which have a sort of metaphysical quality about it. The physicalist, naturalist, Darwinist can not begin to offer an epistemic explaination for anything. He must rely on his faith in his presuppositional committements to explain himself. When pressed, he claims the highest road of what Gould called the 'scientific magisterium' and said a theistic magesterium would be allowed to exist,but never shall the twain meet. It was sort of a claim of leaving the left-overs to the theists world. And having made such claims, they close the door, proclaim ignorance of the theist and declare victory. But, these questions still hang in the air unanswered, and we keep asking for their explaination and explain themselves regarding these questions. As I read the thread the explaination, when asked the abiotic origin of life, make a declarative statement that origin of life has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. Of course, the second organism would never have evolved if the first had not, they say. So making a claim of that subject being off limits, they set their sights on homogies, embryological similarities, biogeographical distribution, the declarations of rudimentary organs, they then set out to make their case, having gerrymandered uncomfortable juxaposed subject matter. Once their ground rules are declared they proceed to try to make their case using logic, reason, and rational thought, even though they cannot account for logic, reason, and rational thought. These volitional declarations are unscientific presuppositions and boil down to opinion, not science.
Naturalism is dead. We simply need to give time to the metaphysical naturalist to come to terms with its defeat. Or, defend it.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Robert Jastrow.
The next honest, transitional questions are that of free will and Satan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.