The Folly of Modern Science
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am
The Folly of Modern Science
There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.
I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Says who?
All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.
All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Can you name anything that has been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".Systematic wrote:There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.
I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22441
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.Systematic wrote: I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.
Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Good to see you, IC.Immanuel Can wrote:Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.Systematic wrote: I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.
Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22441
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Thank you. Nice to see you too.Dalek Prime wrote: Good to see you, IC.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Dalek Prime wrote: Good to see you, IC.
Fortunately, I can't see either of you.Immanuel Can wrote: Thank you. Nice to see you too.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
What? I don't understand this post.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Harbal is being cleverly literal.Melchior wrote:What? I don't understand this post.
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
I know how science is done. I was more concerned about the thinking that goes into science.Dalek Prime wrote:Says who?
All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
I might agree that egos can get in the way, as in any endeavour, or where funds may be better spent.Systematic wrote:I know how science is done. I was more concerned about the thinking that goes into science.Dalek Prime wrote:Says who?
All science asks is that a phenomenon be measureable, and repeatable. If it is, it's a proven hypothesis. If not, it's junk. Just like your knowledge of world affairs, and now, apparently, your understanding of how science is done.
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."Immanuel Can wrote:Word-choice here is flawed. There's no such thing as "a proof for why"; only a plausible hypothesis of how.Systematic wrote: I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
"Why" is a question involving volition and teleology; and any volitional or teleological reason for the existing state of things is not something that Naturalists and Materialists even entertain.
Moreover, all scientific findings are inductive (i.e. probability claims) not "proofs." "Proofs" refer only to matters of certainty, such as in maths or formal, symbolic logic.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22441
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
No problem...it's easy to do.Systematic wrote:Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."
The matter of how Creation came to exist is one question; the matter of whether or not there was a why for that is another, as I'm sure you realize. The first is merely mechanical, meaning "by what method did this take place?" The second is teleological, meaning "for what purpose was this established?" The Atheist is going to find your second question mystifying, since neither a Big Bang nor a putative infinite succession of universes is capable of purpose.
However, as you rightly point out, "complexity" --if by that you mean complex and designed, rather than, say haphazardly piled together, would constitute physical, scientific indication of God. For any actual design found in nature would immediately point to a question of purpose. Things are always "designed" for a purpose, a teleological goal, a "why". "Design" is not, by definition, a word we apply to accidents, whether local or cosmic.
This is why Atheism must simply refuse the scientific observation of design in nature. Only in this way may it thus continue to claim there is no natural evidence for a Designer; but if design exists and is observable, then they're just sticking their fingers in their ears and humming, so to speak. The design doesn't go away just because one refuses to acknowledge it.
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
Immanuel Can wrote:No problem...it's easy to do.Systematic wrote:Sorry, I think I misspoke. I meant that people could point to nature and say, "Look at all that complexity; it must be God's creation."
The matter of how Creation came to exist is one question; the matter of whether or not there was a why for that is another, as I'm sure you realize. The first is merely mechanical, meaning "by what method did this take place?" The second is teleological, meaning "for what purpose was this established?" The Atheist is going to find your second question mystifying, since neither a Big Bang nor a putative infinite succession of universes is capable of purpose.
However, as you rightly point out, "complexity" --if by that you mean complex and designed, rather than, say haphazardly piled together, would constitute physical, scientific indication of God. For any actual design found in nature would immediately point to a question of purpose. Things are always "designed" for a purpose, a teleological goal, a "why". "Design" is not, by definition, a word we apply to accidents, whether local or cosmic.
This is why Atheism must simply refuse the scientific observation of design in nature. Only in this way may it thus continue to claim there is no natural evidence for a Designer; but if design exists and is observable, then they're just sticking their fingers in their ears and humming, so to speak. The design doesn't go away just because one refuses to acknowledge it.
OK, you are sort of getting what I mean. I'm not saying that there is a god or not. I was actually implying that there was not for the sake of the typical scientist. But that's not important right now.
What I am saying is this: science can do experiments and observe, but in order to cross over into theoretical knowledge, there is this extra step--interpretation. And not every interpretation is created equal. So they should be open to diverse interpretations even if they are accustomed to one or a few. EDIT: Some of their theories are imperfect. For example special relativity doesn't fit with quantum mechanics.
I think I might be getting into the territory of education in this topic. Too bad. And I'll tell you why "too bad". Modern schools are often authoritarian. You agree with the professor, or you get a bad grade and fail. So basically you probably get at least some resonant ignorance (i.e. their professor was told by their professor was told by their professor, and so on).
-
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Folly of Modern Science
"proof" at night?thedoc wrote:Can you name anything that has been "proven beyond the shadow of a doubt".Systematic wrote:There is the insistence that everything that is not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the scientific method already is not up for discussion. The thing about all new hypotheses is that they are hypothetical. Ironically a new scientific idea would have more luck with the Pope.
I'm sure that pre-Darwin scientists had plenty of proofs for why God created all of the diverse species.
-Imp