Christian anti-Science

Fanny Cradock

Ah OK. It getting old now.


Here, have a yellow for your troubles.

JimiTime

fedor.2 wrote: »

hey how did you get that picture

Yore Momma!




......This is After Hours isn't it??

fedor.2

ok i apologise

fedor.2

that was poor

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock

Fedor, I really think you would get a kick out of this forum. I think it would suit your style better.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

Here we go again.

I'm calling you out here and now. Either support that assertion with a link or withdraw it.

I am really sick of you misrepresenting me. This board, and this forum, should allow for a diversity of opinions - but you have no right to make false claims about me.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are those eg Wolpert or Chalmers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F who would state Chinese science isn't science it is technology and mathematics isn't science it is an extension of formal logic. It is "a language for science" if you like. science is an extension of greek rationality coupled with Western creativity. There isn't African or Chinese science. By the way i dont believe in the "scientific method" either. I wont waffle on the philosophy. for more on this read Kuhn and look up "science wars" or "postmodern science"

On the "helocentric theory was adequate for the observations of the time" how does it explain that Venus has "phases" like the Moon?

On Catholic/Protestant differences
I have studied the Gallileo controversy and the idea of the church was out to get Galileo is not the real picture. Academics (who were all churchmen) were out to get him. One can not say Luther doesnt represent all Protestantism and then claim the Academics did represent all Catholics. Copernicus book about Heliocentrism was censored by the Editor Osiander a Lutheran Monk.

Galileos big mouth and big ego got him into trouble. His genius was far beyond that of scientific academics of his time but don't forget there were other his equal we are talking about the Renaissance aren't we? Michelangelo died the year he was born and Newton was born the year he died.

And it was his later work "Two new Sciences" which was his greatest contribution to science. He wasn't tortured and didn't suffer in any serious way from the inquisition.
Though a better scientist, he was stitched up by those who were his political betters. The Jesuits made the missiles and the "Hounds of The Lord" ( Dominicans) fired them at him.

ISAW

iUseVi wrote: »

Seriously could you be any more biased. You keep repeating this over and over but you have yet to provide any evidence for it. Repeating things is not evidence, although it may convince some of the more weak minded around here. You have yet to prove that Christianity was anything more than a passive observer to these events, and that Islam would not have done just as good a job.

That's nonsense. Clearly christian rulers funded and founded based on christian ethics just as Muslims did. and earlier in the middle Ages from 500 to 1500 say it was religious orders who preserved classic knowledge in Europe. Yes Arabs - ARABS not Muslims since Islam was not around at the time - did improve on some of the classic knowledge and later on Muslims did also but they didn't do that in Europe. and all the while Byzantine knowledge was developed and linked with the state in the eastern church. to claim the church had nothing to do with developing knowledge infrastructure is nonsense. the whole european University system was Church linked.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

The Ottomans had a long history of natural philosophy, many notable natural philosophers and mathematicians that developed upon the Greek concepts they inherited which influenced Europe ad vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Which they inherited from the Eastern CHRISTIAN Byzantine empire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science

I have no doubt Arabs and Muslims improved on Greek ideas but the origin was Greek rationality. Ill come back again to the Popes Address at Regensburg where he points to one difference between Christianity and Islam, ironically in a siege of Constantinople:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Here we go again.

I'm calling you out here and now. Either support that assertion with a link or withdraw it.

I am really sick of you misrepresenting me. This board, and this forum, should allow for a diversity of opinions - but you have no right to make false claims about me.

and what about supporting this from the same message?:

I only ask because every time we have these particular kinds of discussion your opinion about what is and is not a religion changes depending on how it suits your argument.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Here we go again.

I'm calling you out here and now. Either support that assertion with a link or withdraw it.

Did you not say that you would be happy if everyone in the world was a Christian ?

Did you not say that you believe it's good that many customs and traditions in the past, which largely owe their destruction to Christianity, are gone ?

Did you not say that many customs and traditions today in the world are incompatible with Christianity ?

If you want everyone in the world to be Christian then surely that means you want all the traditions and customs in the world which you view as incompatible with Christianity to be gone ?

I am really sick of you misrepresenting me.

Looking forward to your response.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

There are those eg Wolpert or Chalmers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F who would state Chinese science isn't science it is technology and mathematics isn't science it is an extension of formal logic.

Not even worthy of a response except to link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_science

The history of science and technology in China is both long and rich with many contributions to science and technology. In antiquity, independently of Greek philosophers and other civilizations, ancient Chinese philosophers made significant advances in science, technology, mathematics, and astronomy. The first recorded observations of comets, solar eclipses, and supernovae were made in China. Traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture and herbal medicine were also practiced.

You've got a point about Mathematics, strictly using the definition of science to refer to the 'physical' world then Mathematics is not a science. Then again, using this strict definition neither is theoretical physics

The question of Mathematics as a science is whether mathematics is created (art) or discovered (science). Are numbers 'real', do they exist in nature or are they just constructs of our mind.

It is "a language for science" if you like. science is an extension of greek rationality coupled with Western creativity.

Again, any decent encyclopaedia or history book can correct such nonsensical statements easily. Not worth responding to.

There isn't African or Chinese science.

Nonsense.

By the way i dont believe in the "scientific method" either.

I've no doubt you don't. You prove it regularly.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

I have no doubt Arabs and Muslims improved on Greek ideas but the origin was Greek rationality.

Among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_medicine#Achievements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_Classical_Antiquity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_ancient_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

And for hundreds of years in Europe, under the repression of the Catholic Church, education and learning were at a standstill whereas in the Islamic world it was blossoming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

The revitalisation of learning and science in Europe was not internal to Europe but came from outside;

An intellectual revitalization of Europe started with the birth of medieval universities in the 12th century. The contact with the Islamic world in Spain and Sicily, and during the Reconquista and the Crusades, allowed Europeans access to scientific Greek and Arabic texts, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Jābir ibn Hayyān, al-Khwarizmi, Alhazen, Avicenna, and Averroes.

monosharp

ISAW wrote: »

and what about supporting this from the same message?:

Is Confucianism/Buddhism/Juche a religion ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Did you not say that you would be happy if everyone in the world was a Christian ?

Did you not say that you believe it's good that many customs and traditions in the past, which largely owe their destruction to Christianity, are gone ?

Did you not say that many customs and traditions today in the world are incompatible with Christianity ?

If you want everyone in the world to be Christian then surely that means you want all the traditions and customs in the world which you view as incompatible with Christianity to be gone ?

Looking forward to your response.

Don't try to wriggle out of your falsehood by changing the subject.

Your claim was: We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

Now where is the link to me saying that?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Your claim was: We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

Now where is the link to me saying that?

I said you expressed that opinion, I didn't say you wrote that exact sentence.

In different threads you have stated;
1. If everyone in the world was Christian it would be good.
2. It's good that many customs and traditions in the past, which largely owe their destruction to Christianity, are gone ?
3. Many customs and traditions today in the world are incompatible with Christianity.

Added togeather these opinions would infer you think it would be a good thing to have a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions.

I didn't say you 'wanted' it, I said you thought it would be a good thing.

Do you think having a world absent of homosexual practice would be a good thing ? I know you don't hate homosexuals or think they are evil etc. But I'm also pretty sure you think it would be a good thing if the practice of homosexuality didn't exist.

Am I right or wrong ?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

By the way i dont believe in the "scientific method" either.

Its ok, it believes in you :pac:

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Did you not say that you would be happy if everyone in the world was a Christian ?

I don't know did he?

Where are you references?
cites ?
Quotes?

You are the one who makes claims about science being supported by evidence!

So?..... where is your evidence?

ever heard of "burden of proof"?

Did you not say that you believe it's good that many customs and traditions in the past, which largely owe their destruction to Christianity, are gone ?

Did you not say that many customs and traditions today in the world are incompatible with Christianity ?

I really think as someone who proports to follow reason and science that beginning a proof with "did you not say" is a bit much. Please look up "proving a negative" You will find it under "logical fallacy".

Look you are being asked about what he DID SAY not about what he didn't claim!

Just show us all where he did make the claim you suggested will you?

Either do that or apologise , admit you were wrong and withdraw the remark.

If you want everyone in the world to be Christian then surely that means you want all the traditions and customs in the world which you view as incompatible with Christianity to be gone ?

Looking forward to your response.

Please stop trying to wriggle off the hook with sophistry and show the EVIDENCE backing up your claim will you?

You claimed of PDN

We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

Care to show us the discussion and wher PDN stated that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

As far as I am aware he has stated people should be tolerant of what they don't approve and he has been consistent in that. You claim he isn't consistant and that he claimed Christianity should be intolerant.

WHERE did he claim that?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Which they inherited from the Eastern CHRISTIAN Byzantine empire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science

I have no doubt Arabs and Muslims improved on Greek ideas but the origin was Greek rationality.

That was my original point. PDN is arguing that the progression of natural philosophy to science occurred in Europe because of Christianity's dominance.

There seems to be nothing to support this claim other than the fact that Christianity was around when all this happened and the idea he seems to like that Christianity makes people curious and discusses order (as opposed to what I wonder, even the polytheists believed in fundamental order)

On the other hand there is a direct link between classical Greek concepts and the advancements of natural philosophy that lead to science.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill come back again to the Popes Address at Regensburg where he points to one difference between Christianity and Islam, ironically in a siege of Constantinople:

I think less said about that speech the better...

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Not even worthy of a response except to link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_science

LOL! if it is in Wikipedia it must be true. I post a reference to a publications by people who are at the forefront of the philosophy of Science and you dismiss them by supplying a wikipedia link?

Here by the way is the Wikipedia link to chalmers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Chalmers
Dr. Chalmers was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Humanities in 1997. His primary research interest is the philosophy of Science and he is author of the best-selling textbook What Is This Thing Called Science? which has been translated into many languages.


Here is his homepage:http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehlt/philosophy/the-department/visiting-scholars/alan-chalmers.cfm

you will find about 100 publications there not just best selling books, including some journal articles on galileo. I suggest you read them before you dismiss the source with your wikipedia reference to "Chinese Science"

a reference which actually states:

The Society of Jesus introduced, according to Thomas Woods, "a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible."

and ...

John K. Fairbank argued that the Chinese political system was hostile to scientific progress.

Needham argued, and most scholars agreed, that cultural factors prevented these Chinese achievements from developing into what could be called "science".

You've got a point about Mathematics, strictly using the definition of science to refer to the 'physical' world then Mathematics is not a science. Then again, using this strict definition neither is theoretical physics

that isnt the definition I was using. I didn't say science was not philisophical abstraction and only in the physical world although I would be practical in that the way people know the science of the quantum world is "true" is that transistors work! But again my definition was based on chalmers way of looking at the greek rationality. Yes we all have abstract perceptions in our heads when we look at a brick but there is still a "real" brick there! I am not a constructivist and dont believe like some of the the relativist postmodern science that all knowledge is socially constructed.

The question of Mathematics as a science is whether mathematics is created (art) or discovered (science). Are numbers 'real', do they exist in nature or are they just constructs of our mind.

Mathematics is just a formal language. It isn't science. and i have already circumlocuted your "is it real" and constructivist argument!

Again, any decent encyclopaedia or history book can correct such nonsensical statements easily. Not worth responding to.

that seems to be the standard of your debate when faced with published academic journals - gainsay it or resort of a wikipedia reference you dont quote from and dont even seem to have read.

Nonsense.

QED!

I've no doubt you don't. You prove it regularly.

You are the one who is dipping into "proving a negative" failing to support claims about PDN and "shifting the burden"


I am referring to a widely held view in the philosophy of Science and in science education literature about the myth of "scientific method" If you read Kuhn's "Structure of scientific REvolutions" you would have a better idea maybe. I reccommentd you read it. and whild you are at it read Chalmers "What is this think called science" . they are both quite easy to read and I think you would have a better appreciation of the issues involved if you do read them.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Its ok, it believes in you :pac:

I am referring to a widely held view widely published in academic publications.
If you know anything about the philosophy of science is it one of the basic things you will first learn about.

Given it is germane to the discussion Read "The Structure of scientific revolutions" by thomas Khun for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

I said you expressed that opinion, I didn't say you wrote that exact sentence.

We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

WHERE did he state it? evidence please?

In different threads you have stated;
1. If everyone in the world was Christian it would be good.
2. It's good that many customs and traditions in the past, which largely owe their destruction to Christianity, are gone ?

Where did he state 1 aND 2?
aND So what? wHERe did HE expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

3. Many customs and traditions today in the world are incompatible with Christianity.

Where did he state 3? And how is 3 stating: that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing?

Added togeather these opinions would infer you think it would be a good thing to have a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions.

No you wouldn't! Yo claimed he stated it and that itr is a fact he stated it! Yo didnt claim someone could illogically INFER it! (and you inference IS illogical!) You claimed it was TRUE a FACT! And you provided not a single reference yet to ANY message where he stated it!

Admit you were wrong and withdraw the remark!

It seems you CANT admit when you are wrong!

so much for having "standards"!

I didn't say you 'wanted' it, I said you thought it would be a good thing.

More sophistry! WHERE did he state expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing?

Do you think having a world absent of homosexual practice would be a good thing ? I know you don't hate homosexuals or think they are evil etc. But I'm also pretty sure you think it would be a good thing if the practice of homosexuality didn't exist.

But you a CAHNGING the claim now! You stated to the exclusion

Where did PDN say homosexuals should be excluded from society?

Am I right or wrong ?

You are clearly wrong! You made a claim you have entirely failed to support and allyou back peddling and trying to change the claim STILL wont make it right.

Don't ask whether you are wrong ADMIT IT! admit it say sorry and move on!

dont let pride or a haughty spirit get in the way of taking a fall?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That was my original point. PDN is arguing that the progression of natural philosophy to science occurred in Europe because of Christianity's dominance.

Where did he claim that?

There seems to be nothing to support this claim other than the fact that Christianity was around when all this happened and the idea he seems to like that Christianity makes people curious and discusses order (as opposed to what I wonder, even the polytheists believed in fundamental order)

Considence is not necessarily causailty. But i dont douby it was a causal factor nor that PDN thinks Christianity was. Especially since the aforementioned Acquinas adopted the greek Rationality into christianity.

On the other hand there is a direct link between classical Greek concepts and the advancements of natural philosophy that lead to science.

And the exact same link that led to theology and natural philosophy in Christianity!

I think less said about that speech the better...

You don't like the source so you dismiss the point made!

that is a fallacy called "argument ad hitlerum" e.g. "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong." Look it up in you wikipedia.

you don't like the Pope so you dismiss the argument. that however is not counter argument about the rational foundations of Christianity.

ISAW

monosharp wrote: »

Among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_medicine#Achievements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astronomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_Classical_Antiquity


Note oin the above "CLassical" antiquity?
The Pelopenosian Greek culture INCLUDED EGYPT! Alexander Conqueted Egypt 300 years before Christ! The last Egyptian (Ptolemaic) dynasty was Greek! Named after Ptolemy one of Alexanders generals. It remained part of the roman and Byzintine Empire and Church!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_ancient_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

so they exist on wikipoedia!

How does it prove Indian science or chinese science?

Her are some other things that exist on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abductions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_activity

And for hundreds of years in Europe, under the repression of the Catholic Church, education and learning were at a standstill whereas in the Islamic world it was blossoming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

The revitalisation of learning and science in Europe was not internal to Europe but came from outside;

That isn't true! You have a "dark ages" image of Europe. Plenty science was done in the Middle Ages. The Arabs did improve on science but didn't originate greek rationality. Islam has a different was of reasoning. Christianity is rooted in Greek Rationality just as science is! Islam isn't!

Part of the "outside" was Eastern CHRISTIANITY!
Yes Islamic and chinese cultures were more advanced than Europe but Orientals didnt have a system for changing society based on scientific advance. Japan for example had the gun for centuries but still used the sword and bow . You don't call them "at a standstill" do you? Yet Europeans came back with their own guns and wiped them out in a century!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I am referring to a widely held view widely published in academic publications.
If you know anything about the philosophy of science is it one of the basic things you will first learn about.

Given it is germane to the discussion Read "The Structure of scientific revolutions" by thomas Khun for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Ok, its not like I have a job or anything :pac:

Out of curiosity, have you read the mountain of articles and books that criticize SSR?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, its not like I have a job or anything :pac:

Out of curiosity, have you read the mountain of articles and books that criticize SSR?

Quite a few of them. I might have even written one of them.
Are you just curious or are you trying to critique me or are you trying to say Kuhn was wrong?
fair enough but justify your position! If you think postmodern science has problems then care to point to them? On a broader note such developments in the philosophy of science (again I wont waffle but it is called the "cognitive turn") came at the failure of the logical positivists. This is germane because when I mentioned the myth of the "scientific method" it was demonstrating the problems associated with positivism. That is why I thought the quip about the scientific method believing in me (which is in itself a fallacy of reification) seemed shallow and dismissive of a valid position.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Quite a few of them. I might have even written one of them.
Are you just curious or are you trying to critique me or are you trying to say Kuhn was wrong?

I am curious of course, but I'm also some what weary/sceptical of the sort of posts you get on Boards that are along the line of "Everything you think is wrong, here read this..." :pac:

SSR was published in 1962 and so far the scientific community hasn't crumbled. I would see something in that. But I wouldnt claim to be an expert by any means.

ISAW wrote: »

If you think postmodern science has problems then care to point to them? On a broader note such developments in the philosophy of science (again I wont waffle but it is called the "cognitive turn") came at the failure of the logical positivists. This is germane because when I mentioned the myth of the "scientific method" it was demonstrating the problems associated with positivism. That is why I thought the quip about the scientific method believing in me (which is in itself a fallacy of reification) seemed shallow and dismissive of a valid position.

In fairness though you haven't put forward a position, you said you don't accept the scientific method and then told us all to go off and read a 200 page philosophy book.

And the last time I had a discussion with you about the scientific method you just ended up shouting at me.

My quip was shallow and dismissive, but that was the point

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I am curious of course, but I'm also some what weary/sceptical of the sort of posts you get on Boards that are along the line of "Everything you think is wrong, here read this..." :pac:

Oh have you Read "everything you know is wrong" It is a good read.

You will find it on page 28 of this catalogue:
http://www.disinfo.com/2009cat/

It is also germane to what you think you are learning from media.

SSR was published in 1962 and so far the scientific community hasn't crumbled.

actually it has in a way. he people at the time of Galileo said the same of their time by the way. Logical positivism has fairly much collapsed. just as memetics did.


I would see something in that. But I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any means.

Is Darwin's "origin of Species" or Galileo's publications or Newtons relevant today? If not why are you posting on a thread about them?

In fairness though you haven't put forward a position, you said you don't accept the scientific method and then told us all to go off and read a 200 page philosophy book.

nope. I put forward a position which is amply supported in the literature. Kuhn is an easy read. It was written when he was doing an MSc thesis and is probably the most known and influential think he wrote.

But the point is that I SUPPORTED a position with evidence. From published sources. If you have a counter position feel free to support it. If not think a loose unsupported quip about the position I expressed is counter argument then I really can't help you there. the "scientific method is a myth" argument isn't a joke ! it is a valid academic pursuit.

And the last time I had a discussion with you about the scientific method you just ended up shouting at me.

That's you counter argument is it? I must be wrong because I shouted at you in the past?
To what off topic "last time" do you refer?

My quip was shallow and dismissive, but that was the point

In other words you admit you tried to dismiss a valid point with a shallow unsupported satirical comment as my statement lacked credibility. It didn't!