| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2010 03:34:25 PM · #1001 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And by the way, there is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible. If you know of some, please share :) |
"Disprove the bible"? What parts? The parts that say the particular god it concerns itself with is real? This is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, or the "prove a negative" fallacy. It's tired, it's absurd, it's constantly on people's lips because they just don't know any better. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:34:30 PM · #1002 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You know, the word "science" really just means "knowledge". |
This is an entirely wrong description of science. Science is a process, not a collected body of knowledge. |
He's speaking to the etymology of the word, and he's actually right. Of course, that's not how we use the word now, but....
"c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.))." |
And I am correcting a common modern misconception, wherein people who have very little understanding of the process of science misconstrue the process and method with "a body of facts," which is entirely inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:44:42 PM · #1003 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
And I am correcting a common modern misconception, wherein people who have very little understanding of the process of science misconstrue the process and method with "a body of facts," which is entirely inaccurate. |
Ah, well... C'mon... You're referring to the "scientific method" then, which isn't the same as the "science", whichever science it may be. When we talk about the "science of chemistry", say, we're NOT referring to the means by which the chemists have derived their knowledge, but rather to the body of that knowledge. Like it or not, this is true.
Now, as to whether people conflate the body with the method, well... I can't really speak to that, I'm not sure what you mean actually.
But I don't think the distinction's a trivial one. I don't think we can just go around willy-nilly redefining words to suit our agendas, for example, though that does seem to be a popular modern diversion :-)
I'm not saying YOU'RE doing that, by the way ΓΆ€” I almost think I get what you're driving at but I am not sure johnny's actually *guilty* of it; he seems a pretty level-headed and reasonably well-informed guy, to me :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:44:47 PM · #1004 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I agree we have different opinions hence why I'm asking for your proof to the term, "I think, therefore I am". What makes it a proof, in your opinion? |
It isn't a proof, it's an axiom. |
I agree. I ask Jason for an example of philosophy proving something and that was his example. He hasn't provided any proofs so I'm left to assume that he believes it is self-evident, i.e. not a proof and therefore not an example of philosophy producing to a proof.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 15:47:18.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:48:05 PM · #1005 |
[quote=shutterpuppyI would say that "science" - defined as a process demanding testability (meaning the possibility of falsification), reproducibility and the collection and production of observable/empirical information) - is the only process by which reliable answers about the world may be drawn.[/quote]
I don't mean to chop your whole response, but this is another phrasing of the idea I reject. Look at the following questions:
CAN embryonic stem cells be used to heal human disease?
This question is one Science is perfectly equipped to answer.
SHOULD embryonic stem cells be used to heal human disease?
This question, which I hope we would all consider important, is one which Science is completely impotent to address. Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:52:06 PM · #1006 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
If you accept that different lines of philosophical reasoning can lead to different answers, then you can't claim that philosophy can "prove" "the" answer, but only can lead to "an" answer ... |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:52:39 PM · #1007 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I agree we have different opinions hence why I'm asking for your proof to the term, "I think, therefore I am". What makes it a proof, in your opinion? |
It isn't a proof, it's an axiom. |
I agree. I ask Jason for an example of philosophy proving something and that was his example. He hasn't provided any proofs so I'm left to assume that he believes it is self-evident, i.e. not a proof and therefore not an example of philosophy producing to a proof.
Edited for clarity. |
I don't quite agree. "Cognito, ergo sum" is a logical argument, not an axiom. The axiom is actually implied.
Axiom: All entities that think exist.
Axiom: I think.
THEREFORE: I exist.
The "therefore" gives away that a logical operation is being performed.
EDIT to add: I see wiki may disagree with me, which is fine. Perhaps I am mistaken on Descartes intent. I'll go back to my triangle statement which is less satisfying for Richard but by all means qualifies.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 15:57:39. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 03:57:44 PM · #1008 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Axiom: All entities that think exist.
Axiom: I think.
THEREFORE: I exist.
The "therefore" gives away that a logical operation is being performed. |
Descartes himself disavowed the use of the word "therefore" in translation of his axiom, which was originally written in French, incidentally. Check out the Wiki I linked for a quick overview of where he was trying to get to. From his perspective, in the context of what he was doing, the "Cogito" is indeed an axiomatic statement, a foundation on which to build.
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:00:27 PM · #1009 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Axiom: All entities that think exist.
Axiom: I think.
THEREFORE: I exist.
The "therefore" gives away that a logical operation is being performed. |
Descartes himself disavowed the use of the word "therefore" in translation of his axiom, which was originally written in French, incidentally. Check out the Wiki I linked for a quick overview of where he was trying to get to. From his perspective, in the context of what he was doing, the "Cogito" is indeed an axiomatic statement, a foundation on which to build.
R. |
Where is this link you speak of? |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:02:04 PM · #1010 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, as to whether people conflate the body with the method, well... I can't really speak to that, I'm not sure what you mean actually.
But I don't think the distinction's a trivial one. I don't think we can just go around willy-nilly redefining words to suit our agendas, for example, though that does seem to be a popular modern diversion :-)
I'm not saying YOU'RE doing that, by the way ΓΆ€” I almost think I get what you're driving at but I am not sure johnny's actually *guilty* of it; he seems a pretty level-headed and reasonably well-informed guy, to me. |
Okay, point taken, I may have shot too soon at johnny. But I stand by my distinction, and I certainly would agree with you that it is not trivial.
When someone refers to the "science of chemistry" they are, you are correct, most likely referring to the body of knowledge that makes up "chemistry." However, the distinction of science as a process - "chemistry" is the body of knowledge "acquired by [a particular method of] study" - has become very important because of the way science is sought to be portrayed by the anti-science crowd. (johnny may not be a card-carrying member of this crowd, but his continued use of the word "evolutionist" means he has at least attended a few of the meetings.)
The anti-science crowd often seeks to portray science as merely an assemblage of a set of knowledge - a "body of facts" - because then, whenever any of the particular "facts" that currently make up "science" are displaced by better, new or non-conforming additional facts, they can make the argument the institution of science - which under their formulation, remember, is simply a body of specific facts - is inherently unreliable.
"See, see . . . "science" said x + y was z, but it turns out x + y is actually z + b, how are you going to trust "science" when I have just shown that it was wrong."
Thus, this formulation of the nature of science is both disingenuous - because it will always turn out that science is the reason we now know that x + y is actually z + b - and wrong - because "science" is never a static body of knowledge. Even if you mean the body of knowledge that is chemistry, when you say "science of chemistry," you necessarily mean that body of knowledge at any particular time, subject to change based upon the ongoing process of information acquisition and refinement that is the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:03:04 PM · #1011 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
If you accept that different lines of philosophical reasoning can lead to different answers, then you can't claim that philosophy can "prove" "the" answer, but only can lead to "an" answer ... |
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:07:39 PM · #1012 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
If you accept that different lines of philosophical reasoning can lead to different answers, then you can't claim that philosophy can "prove" "the" answer, but only can lead to "an" answer ... |
Exactly. |
I disagree on semantics. I agree that different starting points can lead to different conclusions, but that does not mean for any given starting point you cannot "prove" a conclusion. IF we assume A, then B must be true. It is a fundamental difference from Science that we are allowed to assume certain axioms, but it is also what gives the process much more power than Science. It is also likely the point which the one-worlders balk at the most.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 16:08:48. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:07:59 PM · #1013 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
If you accept that different lines of philosophical reasoning can lead to different answers, then you can't claim that philosophy can "prove" "the" answer, but only can lead to "an" answer ... |
I will join with the General on his point as well and simply add that it would be my argument that as soon as you move from formulating "an" answer for yourself to advocating for the correctness or rightness of "an" answer for all (even, if not advocating explicitly for "the" answer) you cross over into the realm of scientific thinking and the need to present testable hypotheses.
Any presentation of an answer should be met by a response of "why?" Your responses to the "why" question will necessarily be subject to scientific inquiry.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:11:24 PM · #1014 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Only philosophy can be utilized to get at the answer. This even stands if you take the view that the answer may not be universally held. You still can only reach the answer for your society through philosophy. |
If you accept that different lines of philosophical reasoning can lead to different answers, then you can't claim that philosophy can "prove" "the" answer, but only can lead to "an" answer ... |
I will join with the General on his point as well and simply add that it would be my argument that as soon as you move from formulating "an" answer for yourself to advocating for the correctness or rightness of "an" answer for all (even, if not advocating explicitly for "the" answer) you cross over into the realm of scientific thinking and the need to present testable hypotheses.
Any presentation of an answer should be met by a response of "why?" Your responses to the "why" question will necessarily be subject to scientific inquiry. |
Did you see my CAN and SHOULD questions phrased above? Do you think the SHOULD question is invalid or irrelevant? |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:12:57 PM · #1015 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT to add: I see wiki may disagree with me, which is fine. Perhaps I am mistaken on Descartes intent. I'll go back to my triangle statement which is less satisfying for Richard but by all means qualifies. |
The triangle example doesn't qualify. It was proven but by geometry not "philosophy alone" which is what I asked for.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:13:24 PM · #1016 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT to add: I see wiki may disagree with me, which is fine. Perhaps I am mistaken on Descartes intent. I'll go back to my triangle statement which is less satisfying for Richard but by all means qualifies. |
The triangle example doesn't qualify. It was proven but by geometry not "philosophy alone" which is what I asked for. |
GEOMETRY IS PHILOSOPHY!!!!
Here, at least, is my thinking:
Geometry is a branch of mathematics which is a branch of logic which is a branch of philosophy.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 16:32:13. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:38:14 PM · #1017 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And by the way, there is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible. If you know of some, please share :) |
"Disprove the bible"? What parts? The parts that say the particular god it concerns itself with is real? This is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, or the "prove a negative" fallacy. It's tired, it's absurd, it's constantly on people's lips because they just don't know any better. |
I'm not talking about philosophical proofs, and I don't think NikonJeb was either. What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 04:43:00 PM · #1018 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And by the way, there is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible. If you know of some, please share :) |
"Disprove the bible"? What parts? The parts that say the particular god it concerns itself with is real? This is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, or the "prove a negative" fallacy. It's tired, it's absurd, it's constantly on people's lips because they just don't know any better. |
I'm not talking about philosophical proofs, and I don't think NikonJeb was either. What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
What kind of question is that? |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 05:34:59 PM · #1019 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did you see my CAN and SHOULD questions phrased above? Do you think the SHOULD question is invalid or irrelevant? |
My response was directed specifically to your SHOULD question.
By way of illustration:
SHOULD we do x? . . .
. . . Yes! and/or No!
WHY? and/or WHY NOT? . . .
. . . Because if we do x we will have a better and/or worse society. [or]
. . . Because of we do x individuals will no longer respect the rule of law. [or]
. . . Because we have always done x and it has worked well for us in the past. [or]
. . . Because to do x goes against the nature of humanity. [or]
. . . Because there is a God/god/gods and he/she/it/they dictate that we do x.
. . . ??
Any why question is inherently a testable claim (at least hypothetically) and therefore subject to scientific inquiry. Indeed, I challenge you to come up with a formulation of a WHY question that is not open to scientific-inquiry of the type I have previously defined. Just because the question is not subject to a lab experiment in a test tube, does not mean that it is outside the realm of science. Neither does it take it outside of scientific inquiry if the question is currently unanswerable because of the current level of scientific inquiry or methodological/technological prowess. As I have said in the past, "We don't know, check back later" is a perfectly acceptable position for a scientific thinker.
You seem to be wanting to say that the mere act of getting to "an" answer is sufficient, but without the WHY part of the SHOULD inquiry, "an" answer is useless (unless, of course, everyone comes to the exact same answer, in which case asking the question was useless, or at least inconsequential). |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 05:41:29 PM · #1020 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
Uh, anything dated by the Carbon-14 method over 6000 years old? Trilobite fossils (none of those mentioned as being on the Ark)? Etc., etc., etc.....
How about offering some scientific or archeological evidence which proves a scientific or archeological claim in the Bible. As they say, the "burden of proof" is on you to prove the affirmative claim, not on "us" (non-believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible) to "prove the negative." |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 05:50:21 PM · #1021 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Where is this link you speak of? |
02/10/2010 03:24:48 PM this thread :-) {making ya work for it}
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 05:52:46 PM · #1022 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did you see my CAN and SHOULD questions phrased above? Do you think the SHOULD question is invalid or irrelevant? |
My response was directed specifically to your SHOULD question.
By way of illustration:
SHOULD we do x? . . .
. . . Yes! and/or No!
WHY? and/or WHY NOT? . . .
. . . Because if we do x we will have a better and/or worse society. [or]
. . . Because of we do x individuals will no longer respect the rule of law. [or]
. . . Because we have always done x and it has worked well for us in the past. [or]
. . . Because to do x goes against the nature of humanity. [or]
. . . Because there is a God/god/gods and he/she/it/they dictate that we do x.
. . . ??
Any why question is inherently a testable claim (at least hypothetically) and therefore subject to scientific inquiry. Indeed, I challenge you to come up with a formulation of a WHY question that is not open to scientific-inquiry of the type I have previously defined. Just because the question is not subject to a lab experiment in a test tube, does not mean that it is outside the realm of science. Neither does it take it outside of scientific inquiry if the question is currently unanswerable because of the current level of scientific inquiry or methodological/technological prowess. As I have said in the past, "We don't know, check back later" is a perfectly acceptable position for a scientific thinker.
You seem to be wanting to say that the mere act of getting to "an" answer is sufficient, but without the WHY part of the SHOULD inquiry, "an" answer is useless (unless, of course, everyone comes to the exact same answer, in which case asking the question was useless, or at least inconsequential). |
Some thoughts:
1) "We don't know, check back later" does not satisfy me as an answer for moral questions. What do you do in the meantime?
2) hypothetical testability loses meaning to me. There are practical limitations to the scientific method and even ethical limitations (although how you would use Science to derive the ethical limitations for Science is one of those delicious questions). There also seems to be an obvious distinctions between the question, "What is my purpose?" and "Does the Higgs Boson exist?" Both may be beyond the practical application of the scientific method, but they are fundamentally different types of questions. We may merely lack the technology to answer one, but the other doesn't seem any more answerable through Science no matter our technological prowess.
3) You hit an important point in philosophy. People who disagree tend to disagree about the axioms and not the logical conclusions. SHOULD we use embryonic stem cells to cure human disease? The answer depends on your starting assumptions. BUT you can logically deduce the answer given a starting set of assumptions.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 17:55:43. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 05:55:24 PM · #1023 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT to add: I see wiki may disagree with me, which is fine. Perhaps I am mistaken on Descartes intent. I'll go back to my triangle statement which is less satisfying for Richard but by all means qualifies. |
The triangle example doesn't qualify. It was proven but by geometry not "philosophy alone" which is what I asked for. |
GEOMETRY IS PHILOSOPHY!!!!
Here, at least, is my thinking:
Geometry is a branch of mathematics which is a branch of logic which is a branch of philosophy. |
This is precisely correct. A "geometrical proof" rests upon a generally-accepted set of axioms. Change the axioms and change the results. It's not possible to draw a straight line, did you know that? There's no such thing as parallel lines, did you know that? I mean, it is and there are, but it depends on which geometry you are using, and the axioms of same. And the non-Euclidean geometries are fantastically useful, indeed indispensable, out on the cutting edge of science, but they contradict the geometry we accept as describing the "real world", except that it's a real world they are describing so....
I'm sure y'all get the point. Or do you?
R.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 17:55:48. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 08:46:42 PM · #1024 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence is there that disproves the scientific, historical, or archaeological claims in the Bible? |
Uh, anything dated by the Carbon-14 method over 6000 years old? Trilobite fossils (none of those mentioned as being on the Ark)? Etc., etc., etc..... |
The Bible doesn't specify how old the earth is. So this evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything. There are a handful of major creation theories that are not contradictory to theology or science. You're probably thinking about Young Earth Creationism.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How about offering some scientific or archeological evidence which proves a scientific or archeological claim in the Bible. As they say, the "burden of proof" is on you to prove the affirmative claim, not on "us" (non-believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible) to "prove the negative." |
Why is the "burden of proof" on me? If you want to know these things then just go search them. You don't need me to prove anything. But... here are two pools that are described in the Gospel of John (John 5:2 and John 9:7) that have been found in Jerusalem.
Link
There's a whole bunch of stuff but I don't have the time (or the desire) to locate all the information and post it here. |
|
|
|
02/10/2010 09:04:57 PM · #1025 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Why is the "burden of proof" on me? |
Because you are the one who claims that it is *ALL* true.
When we say prove it, you counter with asking us to disprove it. Problem with that is that we don't believe it to be true, yeah, parts of it are historically proveable, but there's so much that isn't.....and that for the sake of the discussion means that you fail in your ability to establish any veracity to it. We don't have to disprove it to not believe it.
The burden of proof *does* rest on you as you're the on making the claim of absolute truth.
ETA: Putting a qualifier on it like "Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and it all makes perfect sense." doesn't cut it.
Message edited by author 2010-02-10 21:06:46.
|
|
