Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: mdmathis6
mdmathis6: "Such a person also recognizes an epistomological gap between knowledge of an object and the object itself, that only faith not reason can bridge!"

Scientific "faith" such as it is, would be acceptance and adherence to its methodologically natural assumptions.
That is the truthful definition of science, and nobody is required to accept it, except when you intend to call your work "science".

Of course, if you wish to call your work something else, then you need not adhere to methodological naturalism.
If you call your work "philosophy" or "theology" or perhaps even "Moe, Larry and Curly", then you can adopt whichever assumptions suit you best to reach whatever conclusions you may.

Just as long as you don't call it "science", then anything is permitted of you, and any conclusions are acceptable in your own logical systems.
But if you wish to call it "science", now you must use science's terminology, follow science's rules and the first one of those is: methodological naturalism.

266 posted on 06/26/2012 1:47:34 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

My biggest beef is with those who claim “by scientific reasoning” to have arrived at the conclusion that any supposition that is tautologous in nature must necessarily be false, (with heaps of scorn and ridicule to be piled on that person who may hold such suppositions to be at least... plausible!).


267 posted on 06/26/2012 3:40:48 PM PDT by mdmathis6 (Not left wing! Not right wing! But....CHRIST WING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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