Is science being divided?

[Averroes]

I just hope one day, that your mind will be liberated from the burden of Islam.

Without Islam, death is better for me.

That makes your science worthless and your philosophy contaminated.

On the contrary, I find that Islam has undoubtedly made my philosophy and science many many folds better. And not only mine. The western historians themselves say that without the Muslims the West would still be in the dark western middle ages and not having the luxury of even soap! And according to philosopher Nietzsche the West would still be grovelling in the dust without the Muslims. And according to PhilosophyNow: “Thus one can state the obvious. Had it not been for the Islamic Renaissance, Western civilization as we now know it would, most likely, never have got started.” Link: https://philosophynow.org/issues/23/It_ ... hat_Did_It

For me now in retrospect, life seemed so dull before I had embraced Islam. But I did not know that it was dull back then but I thought it was great. But Islam is so wonderful that it made my previous life seemed so dull. I have practiced most of the world's major religions before Islam such that now I know with certainty that Islam is the best of all religions. It is really a wonderful experience. I wish you all could know how wonderful Islam is. Sometimes you know, I think of my past before Islam, when I was in complete darkness and I compare with myself now...and I am so happy just because I am Muslim. All praises and thanks belong to Allah, the Almighty, the All-Wise.

[Averroes]

You are the one who was claiming that proof and evidence mean the same thing.

That was among one of the subjects of my exchange with -1-. And this is what linguistics is about. More specifically the subject of that exchange is a sub-field of linguistics known as semantics.

From Wikipedia:

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning, and language in context.
  Linguists traditionally analyze human language by observing an interplay between sound and meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

From Wikipedia:

• Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning, in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation.
  
  In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts, or narratives). The study of semantics is also closely linked to the subjects of representation, reference and denotation. The basic study of semantics is oriented to the examination of the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Semantics is an essential part of philosophy, and as I have already said, it is a well entrenched tradition in philosophy dating back to the ancient Greek philosophers, for example, as far back as Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s Organon and other writings. And nowadays as well it cannot be avoided.

My claim of the synonymity of proof and evidence was based on the findings of the linguists and English language scholars themselves. It is the experts in the English language who are claiming that proof and evidence are synonymous. Please check these following links to verify it for yourself:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

Now the situation is as follows. On the one side, we have the numerous experts in the English language who are saying that proof and evidence are synonymous. And on the other side we have a handful of amateur non-linguist forum posters who are claiming that proof and evidence are not synonymous based on the sole criteria that they are native speakers. The English scholars too are native speakers but not only. So whose advice would you find wise to follow: the handful of amateurs who barely understand proper English grammar or the numerous native English language experts? I have chosen to go by the advice of the English experts. What would you have chosen?

[Averroes]

No one ever misses religious brain-washing once they are free of it. Unfortunately only a few very intelligent people can rise above early indoctrination.

This is very interesting to me. The way you say this gives me the strong impression that you are speaking of yourself. Please do not be offended but may I kindly ask you, if it is you who got 'free of religious brain-washing' as you say? May I know of which religion you 'freed' yourself from? Please if I am being too inquisitive and intrusive with my questions then feel free not to answer, there is no problem at all.

What I can share with you is my knowledge that Islam has changed not only my life but the life of a lot of people for the better. For example in Australia, there was a former notorious gangster who converted to Islam and now he is model, hard working and productive citizen of Australia. His name is Vince Focarelli. In the following YouTube, you can hear him talk briefly of his new life (1 minute): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTyAL3w_66M

And there are a lot of stories like this all over the world. There is absolutely no doubt for me that Islam is the best of all religions.

[A_Seagull]

Its not rocket science, but it is science! Collect the data, draw a conclusion. It is the only sensible way to learn about the world.

If you want more information on how this works you can read my book : The Pattern Paradigm.

Ok. Thanks for informing me be about your book. Where can I find it please?

But for now can you give me a synopsis? What I am asking you is why did you infer my existence from some available data that you have; given that this data is not me and that you have never had an empirical experience of me? If you do not know the answer but it was just a natural response for you to infer my existence then don’t worry, just say so and I won’t be asking those questions anymore.

You can Google the book.

The process of inference, as previously mentioned, is one that is akin to the scientific process. It is a matter of collating the relevant data and then searching for the most efficient pattern that fits the data. ( A pattern is, in effect, a compression of the data.) It is an entirely logical process that does not require any presumptions as to the nature of the data.

[Averroes]

You are clearly someone who accepts authority as a reliable source of knowledge;

Yes, particularly when the knowledge leads to tangible results of something useful, like for example roads, bridges, medicine, houses, boats, cars, computers, electronic appliances, air conditioner, airplanes, trains etc... It is difficult for me to ignore the usefulness of the scientific method.

where do you believe the "scientific method" is written down and by whom?

The scientific method can be written down by anyone who has studied and/or practiced it. And it has been written down in many places by many people. For example, the common English dictionaries that I use have written it down.

Scientific method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... fic_method

Dr Richard Feynman, the famous American scientist has written it down as well. This is what he said in a lecture on the subject:

• "I am going to discuss how we look for a new law. In general, we look for new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what if this law that we guessed is right, what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience. [We] compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiments, its WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make a difference to how smart you are who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. That’s all there is to it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

But the purpose of the scientific method is more meant to be practiced than written down. I am of those who benefit from putting the scientific method into practice. And the legitimization of the scientific method is not by authority but by the observation of each practitioner of its widespread usefulness. For example medical doctors practice the scientific method on a daily basis in their diagnostics and in doing so are saving the lives of a lot of people! Engineers also use an appropriate version of the scientific method to design and build bridges, houses, high rise buildings, dams, computers etc..., and they sometimes call it the Engineering method or the Engineering design process. The common thread in all these activities is that the observation, testing, and experimentation of the natural world is an essential part of the methodology for abstaining knowledge about the world.

Now please tell me: is the scientific method not used in Darwinism? If Darwinism is science, then can you please inform me of the definition of science on which Darwinism rests?
______________

Darwinism fails to fulfill that fundamental requirement of the scientific method because as you rightly subsequently mentioned: “what has never been observed is the spontaneous generation of an entirely new species.” The latter are your own words!

Yes, and Darwinism does not posit the spontaneous generation of new species, so what is your point?

My point is as follows. Physics tells us that the universe had an origin in the Big Bang and therefore we can deduce from that fact that life on earth or in the universe must have begun much after that. But if evolution is to be logically consistent, how can it not assume abiogenesis/spontaneous generation? The first member of the series in the so-called evolutionary process, how does it come about if Darwinism does not posit spontaneous generation? Can you please explain.
_____________

...every native English speaker is not on this forum! What you have on this forum is around a couple dozens or so of English speakers from different parts of the heterogeneous English speaking world.

True, but in your estimation, what are the chances of all of us saying the exact same wrong thing?

By 'all of us' I take it that you mean the 4 posters who have expressed their opinion to me on the subject on this thread. In my estimation then, I have to take a lot of things into consideration. The following are the factors to be considered in my analysis:

1. What is the percentage of the total native English speakers that the 4 of you would comprise? There are about 340 million native English speakers in the world. Therefore you all 4 make about approximately 0.000001% of the native English speakers! That is not very representative of the native English speakers!

2. What is your level of proficiency in the English language? Based on what I have seen so far, in my assessment you are not linguists. But feel free to inform me of your academic qualifications in relation to the English language.

3. What do the scholars say on the subject? They all say that proof and evidence are synonynous.
Reference:http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof


So pending your answers as to your English language proficiency, my tentative estimation that you are all 4 wrong is: certainty. So far I am certain (ie. 100% sure) that you all 4 are wrong!
_________

It is certain that the scientists do not know the age of any of these fossils.

I've already conceded as much, but I'll say it again. This time I'll emphasise the bit you really need to address:

Whether or not we know the exact time of death of each individual fossilised creature is irrelevant. We understand the process by which the sedimentary rocks that fossils are generally found in form. We know that process doesn't happen overnight. And we know that the rocks at the bottom contain the simplest organisms and that the closer to the surface, the more like modern animals the fossils become.

This is the method of relative dating that you are describing. These are findings which can be and are being studied from various perspectives. And it’s fine with me as long as no unreliable dates are ascribed to these fossils. But as to Darwinism until you address the issue of spontaneous generation, this subject cannot be further addressed meaningfully in relation to our discussion.

[Averroes]

You can Google the book.

The process of inference, as previously mentioned, is one that is akin to the scientific process. It is a matter of collating the relevant data and then searching for the most efficient pattern that fits the data. ( A pattern is, in effect, a compression of the data.) It is an entirely logical process that does not require any presumptions as to the nature of the data.

Ok. So by your process you can infer my existence without ever having had any experience of me?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No one ever misses religious brain-washing once they are free of it. Unfortunately only a few very intelligent people can rise above early indoctrination.

This is very interesting to me. The way you say this gives me the strong impression that you are speaking of yourself. Please do not be offended but may I kindly ask you, if it is you who got 'free of religious brain-washing' as you say? May I know of which religion you 'freed' yourself from? Please if I am being too inquisitive and intrusive with my questions then feel free not to answer, there is no problem at all.

What I can share with you is my knowledge that Islam has changed not only my life but the life of a lot of people for the better. For example in Australia, there was a former notorious gangster who converted to Islam and now he is model, hard working and productive citizen of Australia. His name is Vince Focarelli. In the following YouTube, you can hear him talk briefly of his new life (1 minute): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTyAL3w_66M

And there are a lot of stories like this all over the world. There is absolutely no doubt for me that Islam is the best of all religions.

I was never brain-washed in the first place but there are cases of particularly intelligent people overcoming their early indoctrination. You never hear them say 'Oh how I miss my religion. I would rather die now than live without it'.
You are giving out exactly the same spiel that kristians do eg. 'Former prostitute/gangster/drug pusher/serial killer/corporate lawyer finds religion and becomes a model citizen. Yawn.
So in other words you are a born-again muslim. I thought so.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are the one who was claiming that proof and evidence mean the same thing.

That was among one of the subjects of my exchange with -1-. And this is what linguistics is about. More specifically the subject of that exchange is a sub-field of linguistics known as semantics.

From Wikipedia:

• Linguistics is the scientific study of language, and involves an analysis of language form, language meaning, and language in context.
  Linguists traditionally analyze human language by observing an interplay between sound and meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

From Wikipedia:

• Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning, in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation.
  
  In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts, or narratives). The study of semantics is also closely linked to the subjects of representation, reference and denotation. The basic study of semantics is oriented to the examination of the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Semantics is an essential part of philosophy, and as I have already said, it is a well entrenched tradition in philosophy dating back to the ancient Greek philosophers, for example, as far back as Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s Organon and other writings. And nowadays as well it cannot be avoided.

My claim of the synonymity of proof and evidence was based on the findings of the linguists and English language scholars themselves. It is the experts in the English language who are claiming that proof and evidence are synonymous. Please check these following links to verify it for yourself:
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

Now the situation is as follows. On the one side, we have the numerous experts in the English language who are saying that proof and evidence are synonymous. And on the other side we have a handful of amateur non-linguist forum posters who are claiming that proof and evidence are not synonymous based on the sole criteria that they are native speakers. The English scholars too are native speakers but not only. So whose advice would you find wise to follow: the handful of amateurs who barely understand proper English grammar or the numerous native English language experts? I have chosen to go by the advice of the English experts. What would you have chosen?

Blather on all you like. The fact is that you were wrong. That's commonly known as 'in a nutshell'. A good muslim/christian/whatever would simply admit it and move on.

[A_Seagull]

You can Google the book.

The process of inference, as previously mentioned, is one that is akin to the scientific process. It is a matter of collating the relevant data and then searching for the most efficient pattern that fits the data. ( A pattern is, in effect, a compression of the data.) It is an entirely logical process that does not require any presumptions as to the nature of the data.

Ok. So by your process you can infer my existence without ever having had any experience of me?

The data I have that relates to 'you' IS my experience of 'you'. I have put 'you' in inverted commas to indicate that the word may not relate to you as a person but only to my experience of what you may or may not be.

[uwot]

Scientific method: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

This is the inductivist model of science, originally described by Francis Bacon in the Novum Organum (1620). Whereas this:

If it disagrees with experiments, its WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.

Is falsificationism, described by Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). They are two different things. Which one are you claiming is the scientific method?

Now please tell me: is the scientific method not used in Darwinism? If Darwinism is science, then can you please inform me of the definition of science on which Darwinism rests?

A coherent explanation of phenomenological data that does not appeal to supernatural causes.

The first member of the series in the so-called evolutionary process, how does it come about if Darwinism does not posit spontaneous generation? Can you please explain.

I have no idea.

But as to Darwinism until you address the issue of spontaneous generation, this subject cannot be further addressed meaningfully in relation to our discussion.

Why not?

[Averroes]

I was never brain-washed in the first place

I am not convinced. You still seem to me to be talking from experience.

[Averroes]

A good muslim/christian/whatever would simply admit it and move on.

Ok.

I previously wrote: Proof and evidence are synonymous. And vegetariantaxidermy disagreed with me. So the following statements are now being made by myself:

1. According to the gut feeling of poster vegetariantaxidermy who is not a linguist, I am wrong for saying that proof is synonymous with evidence.

2. According to the expertise of the English language scholars of the Oxford dictionaries and the Thesaurus, I am correct for saying that proof and evidence are synonymous.
References: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

I am a good Muslim now and we can all move on.

[Averroes]

You can Google the book.

The process of inference, as previously mentioned, is one that is akin to the scientific process. It is a matter of collating the relevant data and then searching for the most efficient pattern that fits the data. ( A pattern is, in effect, a compression of the data.) It is an entirely logical process that does not require any presumptions as to the nature of the data.

Ok. So by your process you can infer my existence without ever having had any experience of me?

The data I have that relates to 'you' IS my experience of 'you'. I have put 'you' in inverted commas to indicate that the word may not relate to you as a person but only to my experience of what you may or may not be.

Ok. So you say this: “The data I have that relates to ‘you’ IS my experience of ‘you’”. So if the data that you have is to relate to your experience of this “you” (i.e. me), then this ‘you’ (i.e. me) has to be independent of this data for you, otherwise there would be no relation between them. In other words this ‘you’ is not the data, but is related to the data. Correct?

[Averroes]

Which one are you claiming is the scientific method?

Both. They are different models of the scientific method and in both models experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor. In the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced, and in the falsification model Darwinism is not a testable/falsifiable hypothesis.

But as to Darwinism until you address the issue of spontaneous generation, this subject cannot be further addressed meaningfully in relation to our discussion.

Why not?

Because if you do not address the issue of spontaneous generation, then Darwinism is not science-by your own definition of science- because it then cannot be a coherent explanation of phenomenal data.

You defined science as: a coherent explanation of phenomenal data without appeal to supernatural causes.

So if Darwinism is to amount to science in accordance with your own definition, then it must be a coherent explanation of phenomenal data. But now since you do not uphold spontaneous generation then it is not a coherent explanation. Consider the following. For evolution to take place it is necessary that there must be extant species which are evolving. Each species is then said to be at a particular state in the evolutionary process. But if the whole universe had a beginning in the Big Bang, then how did the first life began? You have to explain the origin of the first species, because otherwise there would be no evolution! So, there are two possibilities here, either spontaneous generation or Supernatural causation. Your science rejects by definition supernatural causes. So logically it should uphold spontaneous generation. But your science does not follow basic logic, so Darwinism fails miserably to provide a coherent explanation of phenomenal data. So in this way it is incoherent and hence not scientific by your own definition.

But there is more! This is truly an impossible dilemma for you! For if you were now to maintain spontaneous generation, then it destroys completely the evolution project! For suppose now you say that the first species were the result of spontaneous generation. Then if spontaneous generation is possible, why would there be a need for evolution? Every different species could then he explained by spontaneous generation and not evolution! And if you do not maintain spontaneous generation then there is no first species and hence no evolution! Whether you affirm spontaneous generation or not, evolution is denied! There is no way out for you from the dilemma! It is bound to failure.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A good muslim/christian/whatever would simply admit it and move on.

Ok.

I previously wrote: Proof and evidence are synonymous. And vegetariantaxidermy disagreed with me. So the following statements are now being made by myself:

1. According to the gut feeling of poster vegetariantaxidermy who is not a linguist, I am wrong for saying that proof is synonymous with evidence.

2. According to the expertise of the English language scholars of the Oxford dictionaries and the Thesaurus, I am correct for saying that proof and evidence are synonymous.
References: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/proof
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/proof

I am a good Muslim now and we can all move on.

You are an idiot.
This is what happens when someone doesn't understand the subtleties of English (and the example in question isn't even particularly subtle or difficult).
Proof requires evidence, but evidence can be weak or strong. You can't have 'weak proof', or 'strong/compelling proof'. You can have evidence without proof.

ps Dot com 'dictionaries' mean nothing to me.