Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
more about Science and Religion
Comments
-
Scientists may partake in guesswork and creative inspiration and all those wonderful things but they must then demonstrate that what they come up with is ACCURATE at representing the natural phenomena they are attempting to explain (ie an accurate scientific theory). Science is only concerned with accuracy. Nothing else.
Wrong! You are saying Boyle was not a scientist and his theory was not science untill it was confirmed by measurement.Show me a single scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists. Just one.
Wormhole theory. Gauge theory , the higges bozon, Alternate universe theory. These are all invalid are they? apparently you believe conformation must always preceed hypothesis? Bizzare!
It would seem you are also not aware of the genetic fallacy of confusing cause with origin.
Assume Galileo was the first to say the Earth moved. Did the Earth just begin moving when he wrote that down?0 -
Where did I?
You refer to the post from YOU quoting Kuhn about magic and other things not beiong compared to science. YOU quoted that to me in a suggestion I doidnt understand Kuhn. I later referred you back to that. But that is NOT saying science is 100 per cent right nor is it saying scientists say that nor do I believe i claimed scientists say that as part of science.
What you said was
What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
So science cannot be wrong, and Biblical fundamentalist creationism cannot be right?
Let me guess, that isn't what you meant :rolleyes:So what?
So they don't do this, as I explained to you on page 1.
You - So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
You - What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
Me - Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
You - Nonsense. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. You are confusing having value with being right. Creationism might be right. That doesn't mean it has value to scientists since they can't test if is accurate or not. It is about the ability to measure accuracy (umm, seem to remember saying that already)
You are now backtracking, saying that scientists don't hold that their theories can't be wrong. Which is what I was explaining to you on the first page. :rolleyes:0 -
Wrong! You are saying Boyle was not a scientist and his theory was not science untill it was confirmed by measurement.
You are gong to have to be a bit more specific than that ISAW, I'm pretty sure Boyle came up with more than one scientific theoryWormhole theory. Gauge theory , the higges bozon, Alternate universe theory. These are all invalid are they?
Are they invalid? No.
Are they all purely guesses? No.
Can their accuracy be tested? Yes (to various limits given that there is no observational evidence for them).
So what the heck are you talking about?
I will ask the question again
Show me a single scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists. Just one.It would seem you are also not aware of the genetic fallacy of confusing cause with origin.
Assume Galileo was the first to say the Earth moved. Did the Earth just begin moving when he wrote that down?
Once again I find myself at a loss as to what the heck you are referring to here.0 -
What you said was
What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
So science cannot be wrong, and Biblical fundamentalist creationism cannot be right?
Let me guess, that isn't what you meant :rolleyes:
"science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right"
IS NOT a fundamental principle of science!
That is what I meant. That is what I wrote!
Note ythe proposed alternative as if it can be considered as an equal or on an equal basis?
You seem to forget these words in post 4 had your IMMEDIATELY preceeding comment when you posted that I didnt understand Kuhn:A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation
My point about not comparing kooks to scientists was reflecting this opinion of Kuhn which YOU POSTED and claimed was exposing some misconception of mine!
Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation : The view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
You claimed that and then above you claimscience could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
It isnt an equal alternative according to your own words! Words which deny this interpretation that all kinds of belief systems are equal,
You cant have it both ways science cant be considered in a different light and also considered in the relativist light as equal but different!
So they don't do this, as I explained to you on page 1.
You - So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
You - What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
Me - Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
You - Nonsense. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.I could go on, but I think the point is made. You are confusing having value with being right. Creationism might be right. That doesn't mean it has value to scientists since they can't test if is accurate or not. It is about the ability to measure accuracy (umm, seem to remember saying that already)
You are contradicting yourself! we CAN and do falsify pseudo science and all sorts of kooks!
But above you made no case for measurement. You equated proper science with tins of evidence with kook pseudo science in exactly the way you claimed Kuhn ruled it out!
He spoecifically staed and YOU CLAIMED this : The view that all kinds of belief systems are equal working value to true science. is bunkum! SAying "it might be true" is not getting away from the point you introduced!
Pigs might fly and unicorns might exist and psychics might indeed be able to bend spoons but please don't equate this with science. It isn't!You are now backtracking, saying that scientists don't hold that their theories can't be wrong.
THAT IS A STRAW MAN! I never claimed scientists said their theories are always right or that they were never wrong or anything of the sort and you are constantly appealing to this straw man!0 -
Have you any evidence to back up the assertion?
Otherwise we can confine you to the internet lcategoory of "drive by shooter".
1. I've wasted plenty of time explaining positions to you in the past which you just ignored and subsequently erected your straw men, simply ignoring what I was actually saying and instead substituting it with an argument you wanted to attack.
2. I amn't posting here nor anywhere lately because I am extremely busy at the moment. Confine me to whatever you like, everyone here knows me long enough to know I don't leave debates unless there's a very good reason.
3. I've just wasted 5 minutes reading and answering you. Go back and read what I said, not what you made up in your mind about what I said.0 -
"science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right"
IS NOT a fundamental principle of science!
Yes it is. It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible (ie all theories could be wrong)
It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory or even idea can be disproved conclusively (ie the notion that something isn't what is happening is infallible)
You AGREE WITH THIS, you keep going on about how I am misrepresenting you by saying you hold that a scientist can hold a theory infallible. So if a theory cannot be infallible then IT COULD BE WRONG. That is a fundamental principle of science.Note ythe proposed alternative as if it can be considered as an equal or on an equal basis?
I don't care what you think I mean the alternative is. I'm sick of arguing against your straw men.
Kuhn is not saying what you are saying or what you think he is saying.You seem to forget these words in post 4 had your IMMEDIATELY preceeding comment when you posted that I didnt understand Kuhn:My point about not comparing kooks to scientists was reflecting this opinion of Kuhn which YOU POSTED and claimed was exposing some misconception of mine!
Comparing kooks to scientists is not relevant to the point. You asked me a simple question and I answered it. You said my answer was nonsense. It isn't nonsense, it is a fundamental principle of science. You don't get that, and I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you any better.Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation : The view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
As do I. I have NEVER said that Creationism (or religion) is as good a system for discovering things about the natural world. That though doesn't mean it could not be correct in what it claims. I don't think it is, but I cannot prove it isn't, no one can.
Seriously what part of that do you not get?
I never claimed it was an equal alternative, I claimed I can't say it is wrong. What part of that are you not understanding? Seriously? Please point out what part of that do you not get!It isnt an equal alternative according to your own words!
I do not have to prove it is wrong to say it is not an equal alternative, and any time I say this is what you are suggesting I have to do you deny this is what you are suggesting! So apparently you agree with me!
So what the heck are you arguing about? Are you just arguing for the sake of it?You cant have it both ways science cant be considered in a different light and also considered in the relativist light as equal but different!
I have never said it is equal, I said the exact OPPOSITE. Can you not read.You are contradicting yourself! we CAN and do falsify pseudo science and all sorts of kooks!
That does not prove they are wrong! Nothing in science can be proven.You equated proper science with tins of evidence with kook pseudo science
I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT!! That is a utter bare faced misrepresentation of what I said.
I said I cannot prove Creationism wrong and therefore must hold the possibility that it may, no matter how unlikely, be correct.
This is not equating it as having the same value as science in terms of accurately modeling the natural world. That is utter utter nonsense that exists only in your warped imagination.
No scientist can demonstrate his theory is infallible and thus no scientist can rule out the possibilty of an alternative. THAT DOES NOT MEAN they hold all alternatives as equal value.
You keep agreeing with this and saying that the alternative is a straw man that I've supposedly invented.
If that is the case then why the heck did you say "Nonsense!" to what I at the start of this thread when you agree with it!!
Your obfuscation is infuriating.
You asked me can Creationism be right. I said yes, though this would be very unlikely. You apparently disagree. So please walk the rest of through how you have proven Creationism cannot right (ie your position is infallible) and then explain why you are able to hold an infallible position but no other scientist (or human for that matter) is. :rolleyes:0 -
Yes it is. It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible (ie all theories could be wrong)
Not in an equal sense as the quote you provided from Kuhn attested!It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory or even idea can be disproved conclusively (ie the notion that something isn't what is happening is infallible)
that is a straw man about science not claiming to be always right!
The contest in which you posted references Kuhn directly
Do not forget YOU were telling Me that i misunderstood Kuhn.
You posted something claiming Kuhn didn't support relativism!
This is the very subject of equating other interpretations with science!
Who does not understand what Kuhn was saying now?
The point he was making was that one should not equate other interpretations as if they are equally valid and/or dilute science to the level that they are at.You AGREE WITH THIS, you keep going on about how I am misrepresenting you by saying you hold that a scientist can hold a theory infallible.
A scientist could but they would not be scientific in so doing.So if a theory cannot be infallible then IT COULD BE WRONG. That is a fundamental principle of science.
Not in relation to equating alternatives like kooky interpretations!
That is what Kuhn was saying! It is in direct conflict with the point you are making.
Other interpretations could be right but they are not to be rated at the same level as scientific ones. Kuhn was at pains to point out that is NOT what he was doing and that is not what his position was and the quote you provided makes that absolutely clear!I don't care what you think I mean the alternative is. I'm sick of arguing against your straw men.
What straw man? The only ones her are yours!
I NEVER claimed science says it is always right!
I NEVER claimed science says it is never wrong!
I asked you had you heard of Kuhn.
YOU told me I had misinterpreted Kuhn.
You went on to quote Kuhn saying he was not a relativist and how Kuhn did not view alternative interpretations as being in any way equal to science.
Then later you introduce this relativism as if alternate interpretations have any strong value and try to justify them on the straw man basis that science isnt always right!Kuhn is not saying what you are saying or what you think he is saying.
1. Just what do you claim Kuhn was saying about his stance on relativism?
2. How is my position any different?Comparing kooks to scientists is not relevant to the point.
It is EXACTLY the point. Kuhn says so . He says the kooky position is not to be equated with science. That is what he means by the quote you provided!You asked me a simple question and I answered it. You said my answer was nonsense. It isn't nonsense, it is a fundamental principle of science. You don't get that, and I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you any better.
Waffle! Deal with the actual issue and not opinions about it.As do I. I have NEVER said that Creationism (or religion) is as good a system for discovering things about the natural world. That though doesn't mean it could not be correct in what it claims. I don't think it is, but I cannot prove it isn't, no one can.
So what? according to the Kuhn quote YOU provided other interpretations like astrology are not accorded equal status. If they are not of equal status as science then saying "they could be true" should not be taken seriously to any scientist.I never claimed it was an equal alternative, I claimed I can't say it is wrong. What part of that are you not understanding? Seriously? Please point out what part of that do you not get!
The part where I continually point out that alternatives should not be considered EQUAL which is what is actually stated in the Kuhn quote. If you are saying that pixies or elves or Santa did it then we don't put that much faith in your theory even though Santa might have done it. so if you are saying the Santa theory could indeed be right and science be totally wrong you are not making such a strong claim are you? It really makes no sence to any serious scientist to entertain the "tooth fairy caused nuclear fusion" or "santa makes water boil" or "spoons bend by psychic powers" theories. Saying that could of course all be true is NOT saying anything of profound importance to the philosophy of science!
But you continually rehearse your Santa theories as if they have serious merit!I do not have to prove it is wrong to say it is not an equal alternative,
Please look up "double negative"
Santa or the tooth fairy are not equal alternatives. dont try to advance the "what if Santa is real" theory!I have never said it is equal, I said the exact OPPOSITE. Can you not read.
Oh so you admit that though Santa might be true we should not entertain such an alternative?
Good! Now get of the soapbox of "science does not claim to be always right" as if you are setting up some Santa alternative to science!That does not prove they are wrong! Nothing in science can be proven.
That isn't actually absolutely true. I have pointed out how falsification has become handier mainly because it makes a theory easier to falsify.
'There are human beings on Earth.' one can verify that.
Hmm. A J Ayer one of the first books I read on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
It is a principle and criterion for meaningfulness that requires a non-analytic, meaningful sentence to be empirically verifiable. However, the core of the idea is much older, dating back at least to Hume and the empiricists, who believed that observation was the only way we can acquire knowledge. Today the term "verificationism" is sometimes used to refer to similar philosophical ideas such as the falsification principle.I said I cannot prove Creationism wrong and therefore must hold the possibility that it may, no matter how unlikely, be correct.
While you are in there in that room with Santa the tooth fairy and the creationists don't open the door to claim they are in any way comparable to logic rationality and science.This is not equating it as having the same value as science in terms of accurately modeling the natural world. That is utter utter nonsense that exists only in your warped imagination.
Then why do you keep resurrecting your Santa straw man of "it might be true"
so what? Unicorns might be true but no serious scientist thinks they are!No scientist can demonstrate his theory is infallible and thus no scientist can rule out the possibility of an alternative. THAT DOES NOT MEAN they hold all alternatives as equal value.
Great! Dump the unequal value theories then and stop clinging to Santa!
Why is it so profound to say "unicorns might be causing it and science could all be wrong"?
It isn't profound! It is kooky ! That is what Kuhn claimed!You keep agreeing with this and saying that the alternative is a straw man that I've supposedly invented.
NO! the straw man is that "science is always right" is false!
I never claimed it was true!If that is the case then why the heck did you say "Nonsense!" to what I at the start of this thread when you agree with it!!
You claimed I didn't understand Kuhn and your quote from himn contradicts the very idea of "they might be right and science wrong" as if they are to be entertained equally
You asked me can Creationism be right. I said yes, though this would be very unlikely. You apparently disagree. So please walk the rest of through how you have proven Creationism cannot right (ie your position is infallible) and then explain why you are able to hold an infallible position but no other scientist (or human for that matter) is. :rolleyes:
Back to your straw man again! Science does not hold literal creationism ( as in a 6000 year old universe) to be true. If science says "Science cant show itself to be 100 per cent right" That does not mean kooky creationism can say it is in any way an equal alternative.
This is why the flying spaghetti monster exists!
Get it?0 -
I have NEVER said that Creationism ...
I have never said it is equal, [to science] I said the exact OPPOSITE. Can you not read.
Apparently not . WHERE did you say alternatives to science were the exact opposite of being equal to science?
If you admit that the alternatives are bunkum then saying "science isn't always right but other alternatives are bunkum and not to be regarded in any way equal" isn't such an extraordinary claim and I have no problems with that tame claim.0 -
You are gong to have to be a bit more specific than that ISAW, I'm pretty sure Boyle came up with more than one scientific theory
Trey looking up Boyles law or reading the part in the book i referenced. If you are not aware of Boyles work on air pressure after that then dont blame me.Show me a single scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists. Just one.
I have shown you several Wormhole Theory, the theory of the Higges Bozon, alternate universe theory. You claim these are not science?Once again I find myself at a loss as to what the heck you are referring to here.
Try a search engine using the term "genetic fallacy"0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes it is. It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible (ie all theories could be wrong)
Any references on this?you keep going on about how I am misrepresenting you by saying you hold that a scientist can hold a theory infallible. So if a theory cannot be infallible then IT COULD BE WRONG. That is a fundamental principle of science.
READ WHAT I WROTE! And what you wrote.
and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be rightI don't care what you think I mean the alternative is.
You already stated it in reply as did I! Stop hedging! Santa or the tooth fairy are not going to help you. I pointed out the alternatives of creationism isn't to be equated. You keep bringing up "science isnt always right" as if something else can re;place it! WHAT? the flying Spaghetti monster? Has he touched you with his noodly appendage?0 -
1. I've wasted plenty of time explaining positions to you in the past which you just ignored and subsequently erected your straw men, simply ignoring what I was actually saying and instead substituting it with an argument you wanted to attack.
Thats monosharp firmly in the "drive by shooter" category then"
LOL he begins with unsupported allegations about off topic points unrelated to the issue. What has being goiong on here. Has all of A&A been PM ing each other for a "lets get ISAW" day?
1. "It is a waste of time argueing with you because you are a bigot who will ignore mne and post straw men" isnt really a way to open a discussion now is it?
If you have a grudge take it elsewhere. We dont go for that type of carry on here.
I can think of some good reasons2. I amn't posting here nor anywhere lately because I am extremely busy at the moment. Confine me to whatever you like, everyone here knows me long enough to know I don't leave debates unless there's a very good reason.
A. off topic posting
b. Claims that you may be leaving bnecause of unfair treatment and being confined
c. claims you doint care enough about the debate to be bothered3. I've just wasted 5 minutes reading and answering you. Go back and read what I said, not what you made up in your mind about what I said.
d. not addressing the issue. Unsupported claims about other poster
I had enough of you on those counts.0 -
So do you also subscribe to the view that science is about measuring things and anything which can't be measured is useless to science?
23. Scientists accept the existence of theoretical entities that have never been directly observed.
Are you saying that if something cant be mneasured or does not exist in our universe it isn't part of science?
If you are referring to positivism, no I don't subscribe to it. I believe a theory, regardless of how much of a phenomenological black box it is, must produce testable and successful predictions to be considered scientifically established.And do you say they are not part of science? Life outside Earth may not exist but we have already developed xenobiology. Is it science or not?
They are a part of science in the same way tachyons or extra dimensions are a part of science. I.e. Hypothetical, and with no direct or indirect evidence to support their existence. If someone says it is scientifically established that wormholes exist then they are wrong.
It is important, in other words, to qualify what is meant by 'part' of science.21. 21. Scientists invent explanations, models or theoretical entities.
does not say they have to exist does it?
Scientists may argue over whether or not a quantum wave function exists, or is merely a statistical tool, and a similar debate occurred when the atom was first hypothesised, but they do not have the same argument over wormholes. Nobody is tendering wormholes as mathematical objects with no physical existence. They are tendering wormholes as real (even if hypothetical at this stage) features of spacetime topology.So now something ( we dont know what cant explain it cant measure it and dont have any theory about it) called a "placeholder" is part of science?
why not just make all the stuff above we cant measure or observe or which don't exist into placeholders so they can be part of science too then
What stuff above?0 -
If you are referring to positivism, no I don't subscribe to it.
Im referring to empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmpiricismI believe a theory, regardless of how much of a phenomenological black box it is, must produce testable and successful predictions to be considered scientifically established.
So is a non established theory still science ?They are a part of science in the same way tachyons or extra dimensions are a part of science. I.e. Hypothetical, and with no direct or indirect evidence to support their existence. If someone says it is scientifically established that wormholes exist then they are wrong.
And if someone says "the air is springy" it is only a theory? Is it only after Boyle establlished and measured Boyle's Law that it became true?It is important, in other words, to qualify what is meant by 'part' of science.
REally? how about not being outside science and not defining science as ONLY that which can be measured? accurately or not? qualititive science I note has been dismissed.
Let us not redefine science as phenomenalism.Scientists may argue over whether or not a quantum wave function exists, or is merely a statistical tool, and a similar debate occurred when the atom was first hypothesised, but they do not have the same argument over wormholes. Nobody is tendering wormholes as mathematical objects with no physical existence. They are tendering wormholes as real (even if hypothetical at this stage) features of spacetime topology.
Let us suppose they exist. What of the alternate universes into which they flow? As we can have No data or measurement whatsoever about such universes do they exist and are they part of science?0 -
What stuff above?
Wormhole theory. Gauge theory , the higges bozon, Alternate universe theory.
Let me expand a little.
Mendel the pea experiment 0- results were doctored just like any undergrad student does in the lab.
Relativity - not proven! The perihelion of Mercury was not measured to such an accuracy!
Gravatitional lensing today or the radio telescope of the 1950s would have data to show it but that is post WWII and th atomic bomb! Hardly saying science only accepted the theory when they already made the bomb?
Another example THe cosmic Microwave Background. Penziaz and wilson presented a graph with one point at the tip of the bell curve ( no pun intended)0 -
Im referring to empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
I subscribe to a form of pragmatic empiricism, but not logical empiricism. I.e. I do not believe every ingredient in a scientific theory must be directly measurable for it to be scientifically valid. Only that the theory as a whole be predictive.So is a non established theory still science ?
And if someone says "the air is springy" it is only a theory? Is it only after Boyle establlished and measured Boyle's Law that it became true?
REally? how about not being outside science and not defining science as ONLY that which can be measured? accurately or not? qualititive science I note has been dismissed.
Let us not redefine science as phenomenalism.
Again, "outside and inside" need to be qualified. I don't have an issue with considering wormholes scientific provided "scientific" does not mean "established as a scientific truth".Let us suppose they exist. What of the alternate universes into which they flow? As we can have No data or measurement whatsoever about such universes do they exist and are they part of science?
The universe would not necessarily be cut off from our own. Especially if loop-quantum-gravity turns out to be true.
But, for the sake of this conversation, if someone supposes a universe that cannot ever ever possibly produce measurable predictions, even indirectly via some other theory, then it is not scientific.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not in an equal sense as the quote you provided from Kuhn attested!
What does equal have to do with it? Something is infallible or it isn't infallible. Something being equally infallible as something else is irrelevant.that is a straw man about science not claiming to be always right!
How can it be a straw man, it was your question? :rolleyes:
Me - But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
The only straw man here is your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.
I feel like I'm in a South Park episode
No scientific theories is infallible
All scientific theories could be wrong
????
Creationism is equal to science.
Can you fill in the ???? bit that apparently makes sense to you but which no one else is getting.The contest in which you posted references Kuhn directly
Do not forget YOU were telling Me that i misunderstood Kuhn.
You posted something claiming Kuhn didn't support relativism!
This is the very subject of equating other interpretations with science!
Who does not understand what Kuhn was saying now?
You apparently. Why do you think one has to support relativism if they believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible? Do you think that is what Kuhn was saying? Do you think Kuhn believes in infallible theories?The point he was making was that one should not equate other interpretations as if they are equally valid and/or dilute science to the level that they are at.
I know. That is why I quoted it.Then later you introduce this relativism as if alternate interpretations have any strong value
Please point out where I did that. You know, other than in your mind :rolleyes:So what? according to the Kuhn quote YOU provided other interpretations like astrology are not accorded equal status. If they are not of equal status as science then saying "they could be true" should not be taken seriously to any scientist.
Once again you confuse not taking something seriously with saying it cannot be proven false.
Do you understand what actually infallible means? It means cannot be wrong.
In science you cannot say something cannot be true. Even if you do not believe it is true and have no evidence to support that it is true and a ton of evidence to counter it.
That is a principle of science. It is what stops science making infallible proclamations like religion that later turn out to be wrong. Science recognizes the limits of human knowledge.
You didn't say that. You said I cannot say Creationism could be true."Nonsense" was the term you used. You will notice that is not the same thing as saying they are equal. Not the same thing at all. There is nothing to support Creationism, but I cannot prove it isn't true.The part where I continually point out that alternatives should not be considered EQUAL which is what is actually stated in the Kuhn quote.
Using an analogy I already used if I get a trained architect to build my building I cannot say I know for certain it won't fall down. I can be very confident it won't. But that isn't the same thing.
Nor is it the same as saying that because of this it doesn't matter if a drunk designs by building because it is just as equal as an architect doing it.
If you look back over the post I never said anything about methodologies being equal other than to say that non-scientific methodologies are not as good as science and science is much much better than them.
So explain to me how exactly you think I'm saying other methodologies are equal to science. Please explain the logic that lead you to that conclusion when it directly contradicts everything I've been saying.If you are saying that pixies or elves or Santa did it then we don't put that much faith in your theory even though Santa might have done it.
I never claimed Creationism was accurate. I claimed it could not be disproven.so if you are saying the Santa theory could indeed be right and science be totally wrong you are not making such a strong claim are you?
If I claimed that I wouldn't be making any claim other than that science cannot be infallible, which you ALREADY AGREE WITH.
The idea that saying this means I must be saying that Creationism or Santa or Pixies are equal ideas to scientific theories exists solely in your head.It really makes no sence to any serious scientist to entertain the "tooth fairy caused nuclear fusion" or "santa makes water boil" or "spoons bend by psychic powers" theories. Saying that could of course all be true is NOT saying anything of profound importance to the philosophy of science!
Saying something could be true but it looks very unlikely is not the same as entertain the theory.
Also you don't strike me as someone who understand the first thing about the philosophy of science, so your ability to assess what is of profound importance to it is not something I hold in high regard.
Here is Richard Feynman explaining exactly why in science nothing is ever considered proven or held in a degree of certainty and why this is important (hint it stops science from making infallible proclamations).But you continually rehearse your Santa theories as if they have serious merit!
I "continually rehearse". What the heck does that mean? You asked me a question and I answered it. You didn't understand the answer. Since then I've been trying to explain it to you. What am I rehearsing?Please look up "double negative"
Santa or the tooth fairy are not equal alternatives. dont try to advance the "what if Santa is real" theory!
I never tried to "advance" the Creationism theory (I never mentioned Santa, I assume you mean Creationism), nor did I ask what if Creationism is real. You asked me is it possible it is right and I said yes. Again the other conversation seems to have taken place only in your head.Oh so you admit that though Santa might be true we should not entertain such an alternative?
Of course we shouldn't, why would you entertain the idea that Creationism/Santa exists? There is no evidence he does and a very strongly supported theory as to where the phenomena comes from that involves the imagination of parents and society that doesn't require that Santa is real.
I don't have to "admit" that, I never said anything to suggest the opposite. :rolleyes:Good! Now get of the soapbox of "science does not claim to be always right" as if you are setting up some Santa alternative to science!
That only exists in your head through your misunderstandings and over active imagination. I've never suggested anywhere that ideas like Creationism or Santa or religion are on equal footing to supported scientific theories, and stated the opposite a number of times.'There are human beings on Earth.' one can verify that.
Verification is not proof.
If you are just going to start swapping words around as if they mean the same thing when they don't this discussion is going to end up being even more pointless than before. I choose my words carefully, I suggest that when repeating back what you think I mean you use the same words and don't just swap them around willy nilly.Then why do you keep resurrecting your Santa straw man of "it might be true"
so what? Unicorns might be true but no serious scientist thinks they are!
Thinking something isn't true and proving it isn't are not the same things.
Again if you do not understand that you don't understand science.Why is it so profound to say "unicorns might be causing it and science could all be wrong"?
It is accurate. How profound you think it is or isn't is rather irrelevant.NO! the straw man is that "science is always right" is false!
You will notice the only person who ever typed the words "science is always right" was you. That doesn't seem to stop you slapping quotes on it and continuously attributing the quote to me. :rolleyes:You claimed I didn't understand Kuhn and your quote from himn contradicts the very idea of "they might be right and science wrong" as if they are to be entertained equally
Seriously, walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally? Because I said the first thing and you got the second thing from me saying the first thing.
Flow chart, diagram something because at the moment that link seems to exist solely in your head. I never claimed that non-scientific ideas should be entertained equally and I have no idea how you got that from what I said.Back to your straw man again! Science does not hold literal creationism ( as in a 6000 year old universe) to be true. If science says "Science cant show itself to be 100 per cent right" That does not mean kooky creationism can say it is in any way an equal alternative.
Correct. So why the heck you saying that is my position when all I've ever said is that science cannot show itself to be 100 per cent right?
Seriously, walk me through that one.0 -
I subscribe to a form of pragmatic empiricism, but not logical empiricism. I.e. I do not believe every ingredient in a scientific theory must be directly measurable for it to be scientifically valid. Only that the theory as a whole be predictive.
So you disagree with Wicknight?
By the way :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
Such advances were considered impossible because the basic laws of physics and science were not understood as well as they are understood today. Kaku states that “as a physicist [he] learned that the impossible is often a relative term.” By this definition of "impossible", he poses the question "Is it not plausible to think that we might someday build space ships that can travel distances of light years, or think that we might teleport ourselves from one place to the other?0 -
You keep bringing up "science isnt always right" as if something else can re;place it! WHAT?
As if something can replace it? Where the heck did I ever say or suggest something can or should replace it?!?
You have invented this conversation that I have never been apart of and then take this made up position and throw it back at me as if I have said something anywhere close to what you think I have in your head.0 -
-
It seems at this juncture it would be helpful to say something on fallibility of science and the different between Theory and Hypothesis.
There is a consistent error in this thread that there is a problem with the statement that it is "a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible" and references have been asked for to support this statement.
There has also been a consistent error in this thread that Wormholes and the Higgs Boson are considered “Theory” despite being untested and unobserved.
Both of these errors are easily corrected.
Theory in science is the single highest label we bestow not the lowest as it is in the common speech of the day. No matter what happens “Theory” never becomes “Fact” in science EVER because Theory is a higher level than fact. This is contra to what the public would understand about the word given that they think Theory comes first, gets tested and proven and becomes “Fact”. Not so. There will never be a day where the courses in the colleges I attended will get renamed from Atomic Theory and Germ Theory to Atomic Facts and Germ Facts. The language simply does not work this way.
References:
- National Academy of Sciences (2005)Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
- AAAS ResourcesA scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
The consistent error on this thread has been that Wormholes and the Higgs Boson and alternate universes are “theory” that in science are not tested yet but somehow considered Valid. This is not so. These things are hypothesis which have not been tested yet but are considered valid avenues of research due to their existence being implied by previous science.
The difference here is MASSIVE but subtle enough to escape some posters here. Theory is something we consider Valid, but not infallible, but unlikely to be proven wrong given the wealth of data and testing that has thus far shown them correct. Hypothesis on the other hand is not considered valid in and of itself, but is what in science we consider to be a valid avenue of investigation which Wormholes, Bosons and alternate universes very much are.
As seen in the reference above "Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena". The theories are considered valid in and of themselves. The "as yet unobserved phenomena" are things that Theory predicts such as Bosons, Wormholes and alternative universes.
When people on this thread or elsewhere tell you therefore that Wormhole Theory, the theory of the Higges Bozon, alternate universe theory and so on are examples of “scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists” then that speaker could not be any more wrong than they are now.0 -
Advertisement
-
What does equal have to do with it? Something is infallible or it isn't infallible. Something being equally infallible as something else is irrelevant.
YOU brought up that issue!
When you accused me of not understanding Kuhn!
Remember
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463591&postcount=4You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Note the words "equally valid as"? Your words!How can it be a straw man, it was your question? :rolleyes:Me - But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
Note my comment in post 5
I can only go by what you actually state! i.e that science isn't based solely on personal assessment and assume that religion by default is.The only straw man here is your insistence that because I believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible (which you do as well apparently) and I believe that we must always hold that a scientific theory might be wrong even if this seems very unlikely (which you do as well apparently) I must consider science as equal to Creationism.
The straw man is "science is/ is not infallible" . I never claimed anything about it being infallible or not. The issue as raisded by YOU was not about sciuence being always right or not
The issue was was YOU claiming that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
It is quite clearly stated . Nothing about perfect system! That was a claim you later attributed to me! It is a straw man! I never claimed it and your own words attest that you accept that since they refer to no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid
I showed you how Kuhn was saying the exact opposite of this i.e Kuhn rejected all systems of belief are as equally valid. He rejected relativism. You then kept mounting the high horse of your straw man of "science isn't 100 per cent right all the time" It is a straw man ! I never claimed it was!
No scientific theories is infallible
All scientific theories could be wrong
????
Creationism is equal to science.
Can you fill in the ???? bit that apparently makes sense to you but which no one else is getting.
Yes your statement that I claimed since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I didn't claim that!
Kuhn didn't claim that!
I showed you how the opposite is true i.e. Khun rejected it!You apparently. Why do you think one has to support relativism if they believe a scientific theory cannot be considered infallible? Do you think that is what Kuhn was saying? Do you think Kuhn believes in infallible theories?
I think you are building the straw man again!
Your statement that I claimed since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
is wrong! Kuhn stated the opposite of this and the reference you provided shows in the part directly following your quote from Kuhn how Kuhn rejected relativism and how this point of all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. is related to relativism. But of course I showed you that in message 6 but you evaded response and by message 13 you were claimingISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.
The issue was was YOU claiming that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
They are your exact words! You stated them because you claimed I didn't understand Kuhn's work. I pointed out to you Kuhn was saying the opposite of the above words in bold and opposing relativism.
Really? If you know that the issue is about equating other interpretations and giving them a value equal toi science when they should not be given such a value then what aboive do you begin your post with the question What does equal have to do with it?I know. That is why I quoted it.
If you know what ot has to do with the issue and quoted it for that reason why ask such a question?
Please point out where I did that. You know, other than in your mind :rolleyes:
In message 57. It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible (ie all theories could be wrong)
It is a fundamental principle of science that no theory or even idea can be disproved conclusively (ie the notion that something isn't what is happening is infallible)
But the non scientific theories are rubbish not to be equated with science. even if a scientific theory is wrong the other interpretations are not equally valid . saying "science is not 100 per cent right" shouldn't be misconstrued with elevating nonsense. You keep harping on about "ah they could be right". Not in any serious scientific sense where they are in any way equal to science they couldn't! In the sense that Santa and Pixies and goblins might be right yes. If science is fallible please don't elevate goblins science as if it should be considered as an alternative to science.
Admit that non science is not a serious alternative and stop embracing relativism!Once again you confuse not taking something seriously with saying it cannot be proven false.
Once again you elevate Santa science! And it can be proved false in certain instances! that is the whole point of falsification! Non science is nonsense.
snipp the straw man stuff - save it for the bonfire at Halloween when you can chant to the pixies as well.If you look back over the post I never said anything about methodologies being equal other than to say that non-scientific methodologies are not as good as science and science is much much better than them.
So explain to me how exactly you think I'm saying other methodologies are equal to science. Please explain the logic that lead you to that conclusion when it directly contradicts everything I've been saying.
More straw men! YOU stated that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You DID resort to relativism in your claims about Kuhn. AS I stated if your claim is
other systems might be right but fairy stories should be regarded as just that and non scientific interpretations are not to be taken in any way seriously at all then the point about science not being infallible can be taken in that context and I have no problem with such a weak statement of your straw man as it is not an extraordinary claim.
I still however have the original problem of you claiming I misinterpreted Kuhn and dont understand his work.I never claimed Creationism was accurate. I claimed it could not be disproven.
fiar enough. So do you accept "it is rubbish non science not to be considered by any reasonable person even though it can't be disproved?" I'm happy to leave such a statement stand even if it can be disproved since it is making no strong claim for nonsenseThe idea that saying this means I must be saying that Creationism or Santa or Pixies are equal ideas to scientific theories exists solely in your head.
Again you have it wrong way around!
More straw men! YOU stated that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Your words not mine!
Also you don't strike me as someone who understand the first thing about the philosophy of science, so your ability to assess what is of profound importance to it is not something I hold in high regard.
Personal attack! When you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person who is defeating your argument?
Ad hominem wont get you anywhere either. I clearly showed you what Kuhn stated and how he rejected non scientific interpretations. This was after you claimed I misunderstood Kuhn. Whether or not you believe I understood Kuhn is not at issue. whether you can show you claim that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and dont understand Kuhn in that respect is the issue.
I have shown you that.Here is Richard Feynman explaining...
A straw man of Wicknight creation!
Should I now post a video of Saruman explaining the Palantir?
I "continually rehearse". What the heck does that mean?
I though it was a common phrase . To retell or recite. To list or enumerate. to redo or do over again. You know ? Like the straw man of science not being infallible?You asked me a question and I answered it. You didn't understand the answer. Since then I've been trying to explain it to you. What am I rehearsing?
the straw man of science not being infallible instead of the claim you made
that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.That only exists in your head through your misunderstandings and over active imagination. I've never suggested anywhere that ideas like Creationism or Santa or religion are on equal footing to supported scientific theories, and stated the opposite a number of times.
You suggested I stated it! THAT is the issue!
that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.Verification is not proof.
Equivocation is not answering. Please care to define "proof" without resorting to epistemological definitions from non science? Then I am sure I could show you how verification could be proof.
Also please tell me what is scientific verification? Do you really think that verifying "there are people on Earth" is not proving it? You seem to have a ken for solipsism and treating weak statements as if they were profound.
Thinking something isn't true and proving it isn't are not the same things.
Again if you do not understand that you don't understand science.
I am aware of the distinction of ontology and epistemology. Ontological entities are however epistemological under-determined. Please don't indulge me with hermeneutics.It is accurate. How profound you think it is or isn't is rather irrelevant.
It isnt what I think it is the issue that it is trivial when viewed in the weak version. it is trivial because it has no bearing on the issue of science being king or that that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.Seriously, walk me through the logic you are using in your head that gets from any scientific theory might be wrong to every non-scientific idea out there is of equal value to a scientific one and must be entertained equally? Because I said the first thing and you got the second thing from me saying the first thing.
No because YOU CLAIMED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.
Flow chart, diagram something because at the moment that link seems to exist solely in your head. I never claimed that non-scientific ideas should be entertained equally and I have no idea how you got that from what I said.
You claimed I did! that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.
Okay!Correct. So why the heck you saying that is my position when all I've ever said is that science cannot show itself to be 100 per cent right?Seriously, walk me through that one.[/
No that straw man about science not being 100 per cent right came later
AFTER you stated that that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other and don't understand Kuhn in that respect.
Consider yourself walked and please don't attack my personal credibility anymore.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It seems at this juncture it would be helpful to say something on fallibility of science and the different between Theory and Hypothesis.
There is a consistent error in this thread that there is a problem with the statement that it is "a fundamental principle of science that no theory is considered infallible" and references have been asked for to support this statement.
Only as a straw man!
The original point was that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.There has also been a consistent error in this thread that Wormholes and the Higgs Boson are considered “Theory” despite being untested and unobserved.
They ARE theories!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_bosonThe Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. At present there are no known elementary scalar bosons (spin-0 particles) in nature, although many composite spin-0 particles are known. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics, and attempts are being made to confirm the existence of the particle by experimentation, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and the Tevatron at Fermilab. Other theories exist that do not anticipate the Higgs boson, described elsewhere as the Higgsless model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WormholeIn physics and fiction, a wormhole is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would be, fundamentally, a "shortcut" through spacetime....
There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholesBoth of these errors are easily corrected.
Yes Error 1 - straw man I didn't raise
Error 2 - Wormholes and Higges Bozons are theoretical entities for which no obsewrvational evidence exists at this point in time.The consistent error on this thread has been that Wormholes and the Higgs Boson and alternate universes are “theory” that in science are not tested yet but somehow considered Valid. This is not so. These things are hypothesis which have not been tested yet but are considered valid avenues of research due to their existence being implied by previous science.
the consistent error above is "ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY" To be accurate you have to measure things. Some things can't or have not been measured so they would then not be science. But they ARE part of science!
When people on this thread or elsewhere tell you therefore that Wormhole Theory, the theory of the Higges Bozon, alternate universe theory and so on are examples of “scientific theory that is still only a guess and has never had its accuracy tested yet is considered valid by scientists” then that speaker could not be any more wrong than they are now.
They have not had their accuracy tested!
They are considered valid by science!
i.e. ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY = wrong!0 -
The straw man is "science is/ is not infallible" . I never claimed anything about it being infallible or not. The issue as raisded by YOU was not about sciuence being always right or not
The issue was was YOU claiming that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Read it again.
You asked me a question. I can quote it (again) for you
Me - But focusing on the certainty of science is missing the point. It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.Yes your statement that I claimed since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
That is not an answer to the question I asked you. Please answer the question
Can you fill in the ???? bit that apparently makes sense to you but which no one else is getting. The logic that gets you from me saying science can be wrong to me saying non-science is equally valid. How do you get from A (what I said) to be B (what you think is the conclusion of what I said) particularly when now (strangely enough) you are saying that science being wrong does not mean non-science is equally valid.
If you genuinely believed that back then as you claim to now how did you get from A to B?They are your exact words! You stated them because you claimed I didn't understand Kuhn's work. I pointed out to you Kuhn was saying the opposite of the above words in bold and opposing relativism.
I had already made that point to you after you accused me of viewing all systems as equal because I don't believe science is infallible
Are you seriously expecting me to be impressed that you agreed with a point after I had made it?If you know what ot has to do with the issue and quoted it for that reason why ask such a question?
I wasn't asking what equality has to do with the entire subject, I was asking what it has to do with the specific statement you quoted. You have a terrible habit of quoting pieces from me and others and then putting in a reply that has nothing to do with the bit you actually quoted. My comment was on infallibility. Something is infallible or it isn't. The notion that something is equally fallible or infallible as something else is redundant since you can only be fallible or infallible, which is why I asked what equality has to do with what I said about infallibility?
Did you not understand that?In message 57
Ok, perhaps you didn't understand the question. Let me say it again.
Please point out where I "introduce this relativism as if alternate interpretations have any strong value"
Saying scientific theories are not infallible and can be wrong (a statement you agree with!) is not by any stretch of the imagination introducing relativism (another statement you agree with)
So why did you think it was 5 pages ago?
I have never said "ah they could be right". Please stop misquoting me.You keep harping on about "ah they could be right".If science is fallible please don't elevate goblins science as if it should be considered as an alternative to science.
I have never done this. That is an imaginary position you invented based on reading way too much into what I said and what you think I was saying.Admit that non science is not a serious alternative and stop embracing relativism!
I have never stated that non-science is a serious alternative and if you read my post properly you would see that it isn't was the point of my first post.
That is all in your head.Once again you elevate Santa science! And it can be proved false in certain instances! that is the whole point of falsification! Non science is nonsense.
Falsification is not prove. Just to be clear that does not mean ideas like Santa are elevated to the equal status of scientific theories. That connection seems to exist only in your head.YOU stated that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Yes, and you are still saying that every time you accuse me of elevating Creationism and Santa to the position of science by merely by saying that science cannot prove anything and can be wrong.
If you believe that the fact that science can be wrong means it means that non-scientific theories are elevated to the same level of it (which you continuously accuse me of implying by merely saying that science can be wrong) then you hold that if a system is not perfect that means all systems are equal.
This is your faulty logic ISAW, not mine.if your claim is other systems might be right but fairy stories should be regarded as just that and non scientific interpretations are not to be taken in any way seriously at all then the point about science not being infallible can be taken in that context and I have no problem with such a weak statement of your straw man as it is not an extraordinary claim.
What?
When did I ever imply overwise (other than your own over active imagination)?
I have NEVER stated that non-scientific statements should be regarded as equally valid to scientific theories (and I have stated the opposite numerous times). That conclusion was one you drew based on your faulty logic (see above) of what you think I must have been saying as an implication of what I did say.
Again all of this is in your head.I still however have the original problem of you claiming I misinterpreted Kuhn and dont understand his work.
And I still have the problem that when I say science can be wrong your reaction is that I must be saying all non-scientific are equally valid, which means you believe that if science can be wrong all non-scientific theories become equally valid, otherwise how would you have made that connection in the first place?
You are now (after I quoted Kuhn) backtracking furiously, saying you don't think that just because scientific theories can be wrong that means non-scientific theories are of equal value.
OK, so why did you assume that was the conclusion of what I said when all I said was that scientific theories can be wrong? If you never believed that why did you assume I believed it?
Explain that one to me :rolleyes:So do you accept "it is rubbish non science not to be considered by any reasonable person even though it can't be disproved?"
Of course I am happy to accept that it was my original point in the first post in this thread :rolleyes:Again you have it wrong way around!
More straw men! YOU stated that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I did because you instantly jumped from me saying science can be wrong (and thus cannot be infallible) to concluding that because I said that I must be saying that all non-scientific systems are equally valid.
So if you don't hold to that notion then why was that the conclusion of me merely saying that science can be wrong. Where did you get that conclusion from?Ad hominem wont get you anywhere either. I clearly showed you what Kuhn stated and how he rejected non scientific interpretations.
LOL. You "clearly showed" me the quote I original posted in reply to you, did you? :rolleyes:
Before that quote you were holding to the position that because I said science could be wrong that must mean I was saying that non-science is as valid as science. That was your logical that lead to that conclusion of what I said, I never said anything about non-science being equally valid.
After I showed you that Kuhn rejected relativism you have been back tracking furiously saying that you never held that because science could be wrong it must mean that non-science is as valid as science.
So from where I'm sitting you realized your mistake some where around page 2 and are now just trying to make it look like you were explaining relativism to me :rolleyes:0 -
Read it again.
You asked me a question. I can quote it (again) for you
You brought up the point and you have tried all sorts of straw men to hide it.
YOur FIRST edit: second POST to this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463591&postcount=4
I.e you accuse me of not understanding Kuhnwonder are you adhering to the common but incorrect interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift concept, a notion that Kuhn has spent a lot of his life trying to correct.
You then quote wikipedia on Kuhn and add that I
You then referenced Woody Allen comparing me to someone who does not understand their subject.hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
The point however is that YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You have tried all sorts of straw man arguments to avoid admitting that
1. I didnt misiunterpret Kuhn
2. I don't hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You are wrong on both counts!
[quoter]
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
[/quote]
Note: I rehearse the earlier argument that fundamentalist creationism is being proposed as a valid alternative
Your quote from wikipedia:A common misinterpretation of paradigms is the belief that the discovery of paradigm shifts and the dynamic nature of science (with its many opportunities for subjective judgments by scientists) is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.
all kinds of belief systems are NOT equal and not valid alternatives. They are nonsense compared to reasonable scientific interpretations.
But this aboive discussion cane LATER It came AFTER YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You have not said you were wrong in that assertion!
You are now (after I quoted Kuhn) backtracking furiously, saying you don't think that just because scientific theories can be wrong that means non-scientific theories are of equal value.
I NEVER made such a claim! YOU did! Dont you remember you stated that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You were wrong! You cant show I ever held such a notion! But it seems you can't admit you were wrong!OK, so why did you assume that was the conclusion of what I said when all I said was that scientific theories can be wrong? If you never believed that why did you assume I believed it?
Explain that one to me :rolleyes:
that is NOT "ALL you said"! You added this straw man LATER after
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
i assumed you didn't rate non scientific interpretations anyway near science because of the wiki post yoyu referenced on Kuhn saying just that! But then when you refused to comment on your claim that YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. you began to stress the importance of science not being always right as if that was somewthing profound! It isnt! Not when one considers that non science is not to be rated in any way equal! Which is what you accused me of saying when YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.Of course I am happy to accept that it was my original point in the first post in this thread :rolleyes:
Your original post:
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You accept that?
Do you still assert that or were you totally 100 per cent WRONG in your assertion?
Don't get relativist. You were right or wrong which is it?So if you don't hold to that notion then why was that the conclusion of me merely saying that science can be wrong.
Hold on ! Look up "burden of proof"
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Care to Prove it? If not admit you were wrong! And I didn't conclude something which you stated BEFORE from the very outset
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Do you believe I hold to that?
Do you believe i misunderstand Kuhn?Before that quote you were holding to the position that because I said science could be wrong
It was your SECOND post! Post number 4. There was nothing you said BEFORE.
Her is what you said YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.After I showed you that Kuhn rejected relativism you have been back tracking furiously saying that you never held that because science could be wrong it must mean that non-science is as valid as science.
Relativism was not mentioned BEFORE post 4!
In my reply to post 2 (post 3) I didn't say science could be wrong and alternatives right I said if science is wrong ( and I alluded to Kuhn who pointed to the false God of scientific certainty) the alternatives are not be regarded in any way equal!
You claimed in post 4 that I misunderstood Kuhn. But I didnt I posted EXACTLY what Kuhn stated. Nonsense cant be entertained as a serious alternative. You posted that claimed nonsense could be held up as an alternative. I never held such a position and you are wroing in attributing it to me!
What can't you just admit that YOUR post that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. was wrong?So from where I'm sitting you realized your mistake some where around page 2 and are now just trying to make it look like you were explaining relativism to me :rolleyes:
You introduced the quote which referred to relativism! On page 1 post 4 where YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You have utterly failed to show I hold no such notion! But you still just can't admit you were wrong in your assertion!0 -
Hold on ! Look up "burden of proof"
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Care to Prove it?
I already did.
I posted science can be wrong and you then said I must be saying that non-scientific ideas are of equal value (ie relativism).
That was the conclusion you reached from what I said and all I said is that science can be wrong!
Which means that until it was pointed out to you how dumb an idea it is you believed that if science can be wrong (ie not infallible) this means relativism, which is what I accused you of.
Once again :rolleyes:
Me - Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
You - Nonsense ... If one says "magic might be right and science totally wrong" one discredits science.
Why exactly does one discredit science by saying this ISAW? Explain that one to me without referencing relativism. Weezel out of that one :rolleyes:
That is the "proof" (you say that as if there has been some confusion over this?)
If you did not hold to this notion that science being wrong means relativism then what were you accusing me of? Were you just being pointless argumentative? Did you understand why you were shouting "Nonsense" at me?
I have given you the benefit of the doubt and asked you 10 times already to explain how you got from the accusation that me saying science can be wrong means non-scientific theories being equal.
Your refusal to clarify this is telling. You are just backtracking now. I have nothing to hide, I can quote what you said till the cows come in. You on the other hand seem to have realized your mistake around page 2.If not admit you were wrong! And I didn't conclude something which you stated BEFORE from the very outset
YOU POSTED that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Do you believe I hold to that?
Do you believe i misunderstand Kuhn?- I believe you did hold to that until it was pointed out to you how stupid a position it is then you started backtracking claiming you agreed all along that the fact that science can be wrong doesn't imply non-scientific theories are equal valid, which was your accusation made against me.
- I believe you didn't understand Kuhn until it was pointed out to you that his idea don't imply that the fallibility of science does not imply relativism.
- I believe you are furiously back tracking now and consistently avoiding my questions and requests for clarification of what exactly you were accusing me of.
0 -
I already did.
- I believe you did hold to that until it was pointed out to you how stupid a position it is then you started backtracking
The position that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I never held that position. You were WRONG! Please don't try to claim I am lying or tried to change my position. I told you I am not a relativist!
I never held that position! Your claim is wrong. One hundred per cent wrong!
At the risk of ignoring you I am going to progress this discussion.
I want to introduce the idea of natural law vs relativism.
I believe I have mentioned constructivism in the philosophy of science before. This pernicious "loony" philosophy ( Matthews words c.f. the book I referenced in this thread ) is very prevalent in science education and all the related relativist /feminist/multicultural elements.
I would at this time refer to the dichotomy of realism vs. empiricism or instrumentalism. I would propose this dichotomy as possibly false and later propose a trichotomy but I think as the empiriucal vs real debate has been raised we should perhaps look into whether or not Chrtistianity was/is irrational or unreasonable in its approach.0 -
So you disagree with Wicknight?
From what I have read, I don't disagree with Wicknight. You seem to be interpreting his posts differently to me.By the way :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_the_Impossible
Such advances were considered impossible because the basic laws of physics and science were not understood as well as they are understood today. Kaku states that “as a physicist [he] learned that the impossible is often a relative term.” By this definition of "impossible", he poses the question "Is it not plausible to think that we might someday build space ships that can travel distances of light years, or think that we might teleport ourselves from one place to the other?
Well of course. But again, what does this have to do with what I said? I said if some entity is supposed as impossible to measure, either directly or indirectly, then it is not scientific. It is invisible panda territory.0 -
[*]I believe you didn't understand Kuhn until it was pointed out to you that his idea don't imply that the fallibility of science does not imply relativism.one theory of electro-magnetism, thousands of religions.
Note my reply suggesting one dogma ( in religion or ironically science) and that Kuhn cast doubt on the idea of a single all encompassing theory of science e.g. he pointed to fallibility in science.
Nowhere here or anywhere else did I ever state Kuhn supported relativism. In fact if anything I showed you he believed the opposite!
Where did I state Kuhn implied relativism?[*]I believe you are furiously back tracking now and consistently avoiding my questions and requests for clarification of what exactly you were accusing me of
[/LIST]
I'm accusing you of attributing things to me which are WRONG!I never suggested Kuhn implied supported or was relativist!
I never held to any notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You are telling lies about me now!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The position that I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I never held that position.
Then explain your objection to what I said at the start of this thread.
What was your objection to me saying science can be wrong if it wasn't that you believed this implied relativism?You were WRONG! Please don't try to claim I am lying or tried to change my position. I told you I am not a relativist!
I'm not implying you lied. I am implying you changed your position when you realized that saying science is wrong does not imply relativism.I never held that position! Your claim is wrong. One hundred per cent wrong!
You can say that all you like but your refusal to explain your initial objections to what I said in a context other than what I've claimed you believed is telling.At the risk of ignoring you I am going to progress this discussion.
Answer the central question I've put to you and then progress.
What was the logic you were using to get from me saying science can be wrong to your believing that by saying this I was supporting relativism, that all non-scientific theories are equally valid.
Your continous refusal to deal with this central issue, while swearing blind you never implied that saying science can be wrong is supporting relativism, is frankly ridiculous.0 -
Then explain your objection to what I said at the start of this thread.
I already have above :
Note my reply suggesting one dogma ( in religion or ironically science) and that Kuhn cast doubt on the idea of a single all encompassing theory of science e.g. he pointed to fallibility in science.
Nowhere here or anywhere else did I ever state Kuhn supported relativism. In fact if anything I showed you he believed the opposite!
Where did I state Kuhn implied relativism?
What was your objection to me saying science can be wrong if it wasn't that you believed this implied relativism?
Where did I make such an objection? Where did I say science is always 100 per cent right?
And the alternative to science not being always right is NOT relativism!
I pointed that out to you and I pointed out that though Kuhn cast doubt on certainty in science that didn't mean relativism was the only alternative AND kUHN WAS AT PAINS TO POINT OUT that fact.I'm not implying you lied. I am implying you changed your position when you realized that saying science is wrong does not imply relativism.
I NEVER claimed it did! that is yet another false attribution you give to me!
I didnt change ANY position! That is a lie!
I never believed or expressed any belief that science not being always right implies relativism. that is a lie!
I have told you and shown you your false attributions and downright lies about me several times now. You keep broadcasting these lies ! Why?You can say that all you like but your refusal to explain your initial objections to what I said in a context other than what I've claimed you believed is telling.
Shifting the burden isn't going to help your lies! Apart from the fact that I HAVE explained my objections your claim about what I believe is totally unsupported. Given that you cant show I believed Kuhn to be a relativist and your cut and paste about a common misconception about Kuhn which I don't have you cant show I have and I have told you I don't have and shown you I dont have it and posted elsewhere on the issue and am not a relativist you are LYING!
You cant show your claim to be true. You have been shown it isnt true and I have told you I dont believe as you claim. You are lying about me! Stop telling lies.What was the logic you were using to get from me saying science can be wrong to your believing that by saying this I was supporting relativism, that all non-scientific theories are equally valid.
You are changing the issue here! YOU claimed I supported relativism and I though Kuhn did asnd attributed a misinterpretation of Kuhn to me in order to support my relativism! I didn't do that! I showed you I didnt and told you I didnt. SAying I did is lying!Your continous refusal to deal with this central issue, while swearing blind you never implied that saying science can be wrong is supporting relativism, is frankly ridiculous.
Your lying continues. You try to shift the burden onto me and cast doubt that I am "swearing bl;ind" I never implied something. YOU CLAIMED I DID! It is for you to show the evidence. Stop asking me to prove the negative and prove I didn't! I didn't and you are a liar if you say I did.
I hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I hold no such notion ans your bald assertion that I do is a lie!
Your assertion that I claimed Kuhn held such a notion is a lie!0 -
Where did I make such an objection?
Here (as I already informed you)
Me - It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
You -What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
and later just to drum the point home you said
You - It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science
and
You - One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.
Stop stalling and answer the question please.
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
Can you actually answer that question? Can you please explain the logic since you now happily amid that saying science can be wrong doesn't imply relativism at all, that it doesn't imply other systems are equal and it doesn't discredit science?0 -
Here (as I already informed you)
Me - It isn't that we are certain of the theory of electro-magnetism. It could be wrong.
You - Really? So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
Me - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.
You -What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
and later just to drum the point home you said
You - It isnt a fundamental principle of science that science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people. As you yourself stated.A common misinterpretation ...: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science
and
You - One can't come down on the side of science and say you trust it and it is the best system we have and then hedge by saying it could all be wrong and astrology for example be correct.
Where does any of the above imply since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
If anything it says the opposite of that i.e. science isn't perfect but alternatives are kooky and not to be compared to science as a valid alternative.
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
You are changing the original issue again. In the original post YOU accused me of
1. Misinterpreting Kuhn
2. Saying that since science is not perfect and may be wrong sometimes that alternatives are equally valid.
As regards how the claim you made about science not being always right i already explained . Either alternative interpretations are to be considered on an equal basis or they arent. If they are you imply other systems are equally valid discredit science and follow relativism. If they aren't you are not making any strong claim since even if science can be wrong no other serious alternatives are there to be compared with science.you now happily amid that saying science can be wrong doesn't imply relativism at all,
i.e.
Liar! I don't . It may imply it or not imply it.I never claimed it implies no relativism is possible.that it doesn't imply other systems are equal and it doesn't discredit science?
You are the one that began about it being nothing to do with being always right!
And YOU are the one who made the claim about me saying that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
If you believe astrology or kook science is to be considered as an alternative you are discrediting science.
ME: So science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right? I doubt you really believe that.
YOU: - Of course I believe it, it is a fundamental principle of science.0 -
Where does any of the above imply since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
If anything it says the opposite of that i.e. science isn't perfect but alternatives are kooky and not to be compared to science as a valid alternative.
The question (again):
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?You are changing the original issue again. In the original post YOU accused me of
1. Misinterpreting Kuhn
2. Saying that since science is not perfect and may be wrong sometimes that alternatives are equally valid.
The question again
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
If you refuse to answer that question I will assume everything I thought about your back peddling is accurate. I make no apologies for this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to clarified what you actually meant but you have simply attempted to dodge this. If you persist in refusing to explain that I am left with my original conclusion, that at the time you didn't understand and only understood when I explained it to you.As regards how the claim you made about science not being always right i already explained . Either alternative interpretations are to be considered on an equal basis or they arent.
You claimed repeatably that by me saying science can be wrong that my position was that non-scientific explanations were to be considered on an equal basis.
The conclusion I (and I imagine anyone else reading this thread) have draw from that is that at the time you believed that if science is wrong this implies that non-scientific explanations are are to be considered on an equal basis to science.
You say that was never your belief. That claim is implausible given that you have no other explanation for why me claiming science can be wrong lead you to conclude that I was supporting relativism.
So (again) explain why me saying science can be wrong implies that I believe non-scientific explanations are to be considered on an equal basis to science, a conclusion you drew from what I said.
I have asked you to clarify that 15 times already and you have done everything you can to avoid responding to the actual question.If they aren't you are not making any strong claim since even if science can be wrong no other serious alternatives are there to be compared with science.
The claim I made was that science can be wrong. I made that claim in direct response to a question you asked me about what I believe.
You then said that this statement of mine means I hold that non-scientific explanations are equal to scientific explanations (even going so far as to use examples with Santa Clause)
Can you explain why you said that given you now claim that you yourself do not believe that the fact that science can be wrong implies relativism?i.e.
Liar! I don't . It may imply it or not imply it.I never claimed it implies no relativism is possible.
I didn't claim you claimed that. Read it again
Me- You now happily amid that saying science can be wrong doesn't imply relativism at all
And here is where you happily admit that.
You - But the non scientific theories are rubbish not to be equated with science. even if a scientific theory is wrong the other interpretations are not equally valid
Even if a scientific theory is wrong the other interpretations are not equally valid. Couldn't have put it better myself.
SO PLEASE explain why when I said science can be wrong you told me that this would mean that I believe non-scientific theories are equally valid.
If it was never your position that if science can be wrong other non-scientific theories are equally valid can you explain for you why you jumped to the conclusion that this was what I was saying by merely saying science can be wrong?If you believe astrology or kook science is to be considered as an alternative you are discrediting science.
I don't believe it is an alternative, nor did I ever say it was an alternative.
You believed I was saying it was an alternative and you arrived at that conclusion based solely on me saying science can be wrong.
You now claim that you never held the belief that if science can be wrong this implies relativism, so can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I was saying non-scientific theories are equally valid by merely saying science can be wrong in response to a question you put to me?0 -
I already did.
I posted science can be wrong and you then said I must be saying that non-scientific ideas are of equal value (ie relativism).
That was the conclusion you reached from what I said and all I said is that science can be wrong!
Wrong!
YOU claimed I held that position myself! That since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I never claimed that position myself.
If you had some sympathy for the position which I do not hold that is an entirely different point which came later!
You are switching from you hold the position to you said I must hold the position
They are different unrelated issues!
Whether or not you claim since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other is nothing to do with your claim that I hold such a position!
It is a straw man raised to avoid admittiung the lie that I hold the position that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I do not hold that position and you continue to claim that I do when you know I don't and that is a lie!
I can't deal with anything I may claim about what I or you believe until you stop lying about me.0 -
The question (again):
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
The question again
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
If you refuse to answer that question I will assume everything I thought about your back peddling is accurate. I make no apologies for this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to clarified what you actually meant but you have simply attempted to dodge this. If you persist in refusing to explain that I am left with my original conclusion, that at the time you didn't understand and only understood when I explained it to you.
Liar!
You have no evidence to support I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. You now try to claim that any claim by me that:
1: saying science can be wrong implies relativism
2: saying science can be wrong implies non scientific interpretations are equal
3: equating non science with science discredits science
is evidence to prove I held the postion that:I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I NEVER claimed 1! You continually say I claimed 1! That is a lie!
I NEVER claimed 2! In fact I originally referred to how Kuhn didnt subscribe to 2 and how I agree with Kuhns position.
I DID claim 3 but I claimed 3 LATER on in the thread and it is NOT evidence to support your claim that I hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Not alone that butI gave you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to clarified what you actually meant
You didn't that is another lie!
I have told you time and again I don't hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I pointed out what I meant right from squate one and you went off into a straw man of
NOT2 saying science can be wrong does NOT imply non scientific interpretations are equal
It is a straw man! I know saying science can be wrong does NOT imply non scientific interpretations are equal and I never claimed any differently and you can not show I did claim differently and you claim that I did hold
2: saying science can be wrong implies non scientific interpretations are equal
Is a lie!
The evidence is quite clear you (message 4) claimed I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Your later straw man to avoid admitting this lie was that you claimed nothing is perfect but that that in itself does not imply relativism. So what? My comments on relativism were AFTER you introduced this attribution to the discussion and you now refuse to accept you are lying about me. You refuse to apologise for lying about me.
It is ther in message 4You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You went on to ridicule me and claim I dint know anything about Kuhn. I was prepared to let it go but told you you were attacking my credibility.
Message 14:You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.
I would love, like Allen, to have one of these authors available to me when you do this, but of course that only happens in the movies.
You accuse me of not knowing my subject! It is ad hominem!
You came back to it later so Im not prepared to let it go!
Where is the evidence to prove I held the position thatsince no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. ?
Where is the evidence?
I have shown and told you I dont hold that position but you come back with
I hold : saying science can be wrong implies non scientific interpretations are equal
I don't hold to that and you are now claiming Im trying to dodge that issue!
Bizzare! I have tried to centralise that issue! You are the one who is trying to avoid dealing with your lie that I hold that position! You have used equivocation and ad hominem to avoid it! Theh you claimIf you persist in refusing to explain
I told you already I don't hold the position that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I NEVER held it!
I have shown you I opposed it!
I have shown you Kuhn opposed it!
You claimed I dint even understand Kuhn!
You have provided no evidence I hold it but you equivocate about straw men and about things I claimed about what you believe.
This is about what you said I hold and not anything else! I am not "dodging" anything by addressing exactly what I stated as my position and exactly what you claimed my position was!
You continue to LIE and continue to claim that I held position i never held and you have no evidence to support me holding such a position!
It isn't about YOU saying anything other than you claiming that I held a position I did not hold!
You claimed repeatably that by me saying science can be wrong that my position was that non-scientific explanations were to be considered on an equal basis.
It isn't about YOU saying anything other than you claiming that I held a position I did not hold!
Deal with that first.
I'm quite prepared to accept your straw man about "saying science can be wrong does not mean non-scientific explanations were to be considered on an equal basis."
I never claimed saying science can be wrong does means non-scientific explanations were to be considered on an equal basis. Other than the points I made about holding such a "weak position" that it made little or not difference or the possible contradiction of you later endorsing a different position. But that can come later. If any misunderstanding of that point was made it is because you supported the position that : science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right. Message6
It isn't about YOU saying anything other than you claiming that I held a position I did not hold!
Deal with that first.The conclusion I (and I imagine anyone else reading this thread) have draw from that is that at the time you believed that if science is wrong this implies that non-scientific explanations are are to be considered on an equal basis to science.
LIAR! There you go again! You have no evidence for this and you continually resurrect it!You say that was never your belief. ?
No I have provide counter evidence but it is not for me to do so!
YOU make the claim it is for YOU to provide the evidence!
You r claim now is that at the time I held
1. if science is wrong this implies that non-scientific explanations are are to be considered on an equal basis to science.
And 2. I continue to hold to 1
Where is your evidence that I hold if science is wrong this implies that non-scientific explanations are are to be considered on an equal basis to science.?
Where is it?
I don't have to show ( even though I did) that the opposite is true.
Look up "burden of proof" under "logical fallacy" .0 -
Then explain your objection to what I said at the start of this thread.
What was your objection to me saying science can be wrong if it wasn't that you believed this implied relativism?
More fallacy
Affirming the consequent.
P:Believers in relativism say science can be wrong
Q: ISAW says science can be wrong
Therefore ISAW is a relativist.
All Communists have beards
The Guitarist in ZZ Top has a beard
Therefore the guitarist is a communist!????
Science indeed can be wrong but:
saying science can be wrong is wholly different to equating other alternatives like fundamentalist Biblical creationism. I specifically mentioned this in my post.
The church holds a reasonable position on this and are often held up by opponents as "creationists" when in fact the Church are scientific and reasonable in their approach.
But the fallacy here is
What is ... if it wasn't!
It isnt for me to show all the other possibilities! and one cant logically assume I am a relativist just because I say something they do e.g. that science is not always 100 per cent right!
In fact I wnt at pains to point out that one can believe science is not certain and also oppose relativism ( as I have just again done above) saying science can be wrong is wholly different to equating other alternatives like fundamentalist Biblical creationism.
I specifically asked in 6
That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
No it isn't! One isn't comparing like with like when comparing kooks with rational people.
You replied in 13 AFTER the lie about what I holdAgain, yes.
Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
It is only possible to a level where it should be totally dismissed. any attempt to equate such non scientific ideas with science IS relativism! If you are not relativist the claim "other interpretations could be right" becomes "but their likelihood is so unsupported and unscientific that saying they are is akin to saying pixies or magic is true. It could be true but is not to be entertained in any serious way"
As such the claim for non scientific interpretations becomes weak and not extraordinary.
Elevating such claims is degrading rason and science.
This is the side the church is on - that of reason. But reason isn't enough . We need things from outside science too! Values and standards which also are not philosophically relative. I believe the Church has this position on the issue.0 -
You have no evidence to support I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I do, as I've told you.
I said science can be wrong and is fallible and you attacked me for the position of relativism.
ERGO You believe (or believed at the time) that a statement of fallibility of science means relativism. And this is what I accused you of.
It was only after I repeatedly pointed out to you that this wasn't the case that you stopped charging me with relativism for simply saying science can be wrong (remember your little rant about Santa and magic?), instead complaining that this wasn't a "profound" statement and what was my point with saying it, classic back tracking on your part.
That is all the proof I need. You have refused to give another explanation for your attack on what I said (remember "I doubt you really believe that?" and "Nonsense!")
Despite that I've repeatably given you the benefit of the doubt to clarify your position but you have consistently ignored requests by me to clarify what you meant by attacking me (again remember Santa) if you didn't mean to say I was supporting relativism.
You can rant about straw men and call me a liar all you like but you haven't answered the one question that would make me retract my statements.
QED as it where.You now try to claim that any claim by me that:
1: saying science can be wrong implies relativism
2: saying science can be wrong implies non scientific interpretations are equal
3: equating non science with science discredits science
I've claimed none of those things.
Let me explain it to you again
I said science can be wrong
You said I'm supporting relativism
I said I'm not supporting relativism
You said I must be if I believe science can be wrong.
I said no I'm not and accused you of holding the illogical believe that if someone says science can be wrong or is not infallible they must support relativism because I said that and you accused me of supporting relativism.
I even quoted the Wikipedia article about Kuhn to show that isn't the case.
You then said you never implied that believing science can be wrong means someone supports relativism.
I asked you to clarify why you were attacking me then and you have refused, focusing solely on saying you never implied that believing science can be wrong means someone supports relativism yet refusing to explain why then were you attacking me for relativism when all I said what that science can be wrong.
I call shenanigans on that. You are just back peddling.
You did believe that at the time and that is why you attacked me. You then back peddled when you realized your mistake.
I stand over everything I have accused you of so far.0 -
Advertisement
-
More fallacy
Affirming the consequent.
P:Believers in relativism say science can be wrong
Q: ISAW says science can be wrong
Therefore ISAW is a relativist.
Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of your own position. :rolleyes:
Perhaps now you can explain why you attacked me for relativism when I simply said science can be wrong?saying science can be wrong is wholly different to equating other alternatives like fundamentalist Biblical creationism. I specifically mentioned this in my post.
Correct. But then I didn't equate it to other alternatives. You assumed I did based on what I said (science can be wrong) and attacked me for relativism.
Hence the charge by me against you that you believed saying science can be wrong means someone is supporting relativism.
You are proving my own case here ISAW :rolleyes:
Correct. But then I never said Creationism should be taken seriously. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.It is only possible to a level where it should be totally dismissed.
Correct. But then I never attempted to equate non-scientific ideas with science. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.any attempt to equate such non scientific ideas with science IS relativism!If you are not relativist the claim "other interpretations could be right" becomes "but their likelihood is so unsupported and unscientific that saying they are is akin to saying pixies or magic is true. It could be true but is not to be entertained in any serious way"
Correct. But then I never said Creationism is likely. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.
Your assumption that I was support relativism existed only in your head, and it is existed there because you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism. So when I said science is wrong you thought I was implying relativism.
That is my charge against you. You have provide no other explanation for why when I said science can be wrong you would attack me for relativism, so I stand over my charge.
Correct. But then I never said it was strong or extraordinary. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.As such the claim for non scientific interpretations becomes weak and not extraordinary.0 -
The question (again):
Why is me saying science can be wrong implying relativism? Why is it implying that other systems are equal? Why is it discrediting science?
You now claim that you never held the belief that if science can be wrong this implies relativism,
I don't claim that now! I always had it! Someone could say "science is not always right" and be a relativist or not be one.so can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I was saying non-scientific theories are equally valid by merely saying science can be wrong in response to a question you put to me?
Question put to you:
What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
Answer given by you ( message 14)Again, yes.
Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.
This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!
So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.
You stated similar in 23585 on the Creationism thread:
Simple answer, we don't. Science appears to be working out very well for explaining things so far, but we have no idea if it will be able to explain everything.
That is far better than simply guessing at an answer, which is what religion (and ID) do. There is no point having an answer if we have no idea (and no way to measure) if it is accurate or not.
i.e. science is not to be compared with other interpretations without accepting it is "better"to begin with.
And in 23573For something to be science it must be falisiable. That doesn't mean you accept a different theory over this one.
I have indicated my thoughts on falsifability as a questionable criterion in that it is not all en but compassing. But the issue here is "That doesn't mean you accept a different theory over this one. "
This seems to be the nub of your problem about me saying your "science could be wrong" point tacitly endorses alternatives to science. I accept you reject relativism and I accept you would not deign to put non scientific interpretations in the same category or at the same level as science but.
1. You did not clearly say so
2. SAying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.
All this is aside from the fact that I am not a relativist and you are a liar if you claim I am.0 -
I don't claim that now! I always had it! Someone could say "science is not always right" and be a relativist or not be one.
You accused me of being a relativist when all I said was science can be wrong.
I maintain you did that because you believed at the time that someone saying science can be wrong must be a relativist, which is the charge I put to you.
If that wasn't the case please explain.This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!
And? I never said it was like or a credible theory.
So again why did you charge me with being a relativist?So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.
Is it saying I'm a relativist?This seems to be the nub of your problem about me saying your "science could be wrong" point tacitly endorses alternatives to science. I accept you reject relativism and I accept you would not deign to put non scientific interpretations in the same category or at the same level as science but.
1. You did not clearly say so
2. SAying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.
Explain the logic of number 2 if you did not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.All this is aside from the fact that I am not a relativist and you are a liar if you claim I am.
I have never claimed you were a relativist. I claimed that you believed that if someone holds that science can be wrong you believe they are a relativist. I believe this because I said science can be wrong and you accused me of being a relativist. I pointed out the nonsense of this by forcing you to admit that science can be wrong, and since you clearly aren't a relativist you destroyed your own logic since you are an example of someone who accepts science can be wrong but isn't a relativist. At that point you dropped the charge that I was supporting relativism and started complaining I was saying you were a relativist, when what I was actually doing is pointing out the flaw in your own logic.0 -
Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of your own position. :rolleyes:
How totally dishonest! I just showed you
You asked: What was your objection to me saying science can be wrong if it wasn't that you believed this implied relativism?
My objection is that you affirmed a consequent!
You are saying "if it wasn't" and asking me to show some other reason as if my objection shows it WAS that I believed this impiled relativism!
There is no logical basis for showing it WAS that I believed this implied relativism!
It does not follow .
It is a fallacy!
YOUR fallacy. Not mine!
You question asks for an objection on the basis that if I was a relativist I would object just that if I was a communist I would have a beard or if I was a witch I would float on water ( assuming all witches float) Then when you see I float you accuse me of being a witch!
Just because all relativists agree that science can be wrong does not mean I am a relativist when I say saience can be wrong!
I dont have to give you any other reason for my objection to logically falsify your contention!
You do know what falsification is?Perhaps now you can explain why you attacked me for relativism when I simply said science can be wrong?
No you didn't simply state that. You referred to creationism as an alternative being right if science is wrong!Correct. But then I didn't equate it to other alternatives. You assumed I did based on what I said (science can be wrong) and attacked me for relativism.
Based on what you said? exactly!
Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
Your reply : Again, yes.
It was equated with creationism!
When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.Hence the charge by me against you that you believed saying science can be wrong means someone is supporting relativism.
I never stated that anyone saying science can be wrong means they are relativism! I stated someone might or might not be supporting relativism. In fact I believe you believe you are not a relativist but I also believe your statements play into relativists hands by tacitly supporting them even if you don't believe them as I have told you.
Correct. But then I never said Creationism should be taken seriously. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.
When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
and your charge against me isnt about me saying you are a relativist which I never said . Youyr original statements
1. claimed I was a relativist
2. Claimed I didnt understand Kuhn
and attempted to ridiculed me on that
1 and 2 are lies!Correct. But then I never attempted to equate non-scientific ideas with science. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.
When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?Correct. But then I never said Creationism is likely. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.
When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?Your assumption that I was support relativism existed only in your head,
When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
your words above
you yourself admit my position is based on what you said.based on what I saidand it is existed there because you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
Yet again you return to your original LIE!
3. you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
I didn't believe 3 that is a lie! You keep returning to restate this lie when I have shown you counter evidence ( even though that is noit required since the burden of proof is on you to support your lie) and you provide NOTHING as evidence!
It is quite annoyiong that you continually rehearse this you believed that if science can be wrong that implies relativism.
Without ANY support for it!
And then run off into bullsh1t examples of fallacies like "well if you didn't believe it then way did you state P because anyone who did believe it you would also have stated P"
Stalin likes paintings . If I like the same paintings does that mean I have all Stalin's opinions?when I said science is wrong you thought I was implying relativism.
When you said kooks could be a credible alternative I thought you were supporting relativists whether or not you believe you were doing so.That is my charge against you. You have provide no other explanation for why when I said science can be wrong you would attack me for relativism,
That is a fallacy. I don't have to show someone with a beard who isnt a communist to logically prove
P All communists have beard
Q Isaw has a beard
Therefore ISAW is a communist!so I stand over my charge.
Indeed you stand over it based on fallacy.
But It is a lie to cionceal another lie! The other lie is not about what I think oif your position but your ORIGINAL claim that I believed that if science isnt always right then other interpretations are equal. i.e.
1. I was a relativist
2. I dont understant Kuhn
You have run away from these issue!Correct. But then I never said it was strong or extraordinary. You assumed that is what I was saying, hence my charge against you.
WRong! I have given the reasons as to how your reoly supopoorts relitivists.
But YOUR CHARGE AGAINST me isnt this straw man you invented about what I believe you position to be
It is what YOU expressed my position to be!
1. I was a relativist
2. I dont understand Kuhn
1 and 2 are lies!
You are avoiding the issues of 1 and 2.0 -
You accused me of being a relativist when all I said was science can be wrong.
Liar! that was NOT all you said.
Q: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
Your answer: Again, yes.
"Again" as in you are clarifying that you meant science could be wrong and kooks right.I maintain you did that because you believed at the time that someone saying science can be wrong must be a relativist, which is the charge I put to you.
What ****e! "The charge I put to you" as If I have to prove a negative!
If you claim something the burden of proof is on you!
Care to prove it?
The charge you put to me was by the way:
1. I didn't understand Kuhn
2. I held that [message 4] since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Care to prove 1 and 2? Please stop dodging these lies!So again why did you charge me with being a relativist?
It came AFTER the above since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. in message 4 but :
Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
Your reply : Again, yes.
It was equated with creationism!
When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a differnt interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.Is it saying I'm a relativist?
Im saying you play into their hands. My personal belief is you believe you are not a relativist but I don't claim that since I don't think I can support it sufficiently. It is just my opinion but it is irrelevant anyway.
2. Saying things like "science could be all wrong" is supporting the non scientific relativists even if you disagree with them.Explain the logic of number 2 if you did not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.
I do not hold that saying science can be wrong implies relativism.
This alternative[/n] is not only "unlikely" It is so unlikely that both science and the Church don't hold it as a credible theory!
So saying "it could be wrong" either says the other interpretation is not equal or the other interpretation is bunkum! Saying " It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct." is playing into the hands of fundamentalist creationists.
Either alternative interpretations are to be considered on an equal basis or they aren't. If they are you imply other systems are equally valid discredit science and endorse relativists. If they aren't you are not making any strong claim since even if science can be wrong no other serious alternatives are there to be compared with science.
When you answer YES to a question "Could science be wrong and kooks be right?" what do you expect someone to assume? That kooks if right are only slightly right and science isn't totally wrong? Or that science is totally wrong and a different interpretation right? - which makes the different interpretation superior to science?
I have gone over "affirming a consequent" above please go and read something about it. apparently using witches or men with beards is not something that you understand
Care to show me how you were not affirming a consequent in asking tha above?
I have never claimed you were a relativist.
LIAR!
YOU claimed I held that position myself! That since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
That is relativism!
By the definition you yourself supplied in message 4:a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
a quote followed by your comments on it accusing me:You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.I claimed that you believed that if someone holds that science can be wrong you believe they are a relativist.
You claimed I was a relativist and hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
which isa case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.
and you claimed that based on your additional claim that I do not understand Kuhn!
message 14:
These are verbatim quotes from you!You are constantly appealing to the ideas of people you have read though often one gets the impression you don't understand what the heck they were talking about.
How ironic your comment in 13 semsISAW you hardly ever go on what I actually state, something I've had to spend a great deal of time correcting in your replies to me and something the cases above demonstrate quite well.
LOL. Verbatim!I believe this because I said science can be wrong and you accused me of being a relativist.
Nope. i accused you of supporting postmodern scientific relativists by endorsing pseudo science. something the Church does not do!I pointed out the nonsense of this by forcing you to admit that science can be wrong, and since you clearly aren't a relativist you destroyed your own logic since you are an example of someone who accepts science can be wrong but isn't a relativist.
Now you are claiming I am NOT a relativist! LOL! What a walking contradiction!
your definition supplied by you:
followed bya case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
THAT is SAYING I am a relativist!
Your exact words!At that point you dropped the charge that I was supporting relativism and started complaining I was saying you were a relativist, when what I was actually doing is pointing out the flaw in your own logic.
These words are in post 4 before your LATER straw man argument that I was claiming anything about you! My first reference to relativism not to YOU but to the pohilosophy are in message 6.
My opening message contained the words:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.htmlI suggest any preachy anti christian fundamentalist atheists be directed to this page before making pronouncements on the certainty of science based in empirical measurement as opposed to religion based on illogical belief.0 -
LIAR!
YOU claimed I held that position myself! That since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Lets nip this is the bud because you are consistently using this straw man as an excuse to not answer my question.
I NEVER called you a relativist. I said that you believe that if science can be wrong then that implies relativism. I said that because when I said science can be wrong you accused me of being a relativist.
If I claim you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist I am not saying you are a communist! :rolleyes:
I'm saying that you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist.
Equally when I say you believe that if science is wrong that means relativism I'm not saying you are a relativist. I'm saying you believe that believing science is wrong is to believe in relativism.
You quote me saying that to you!
I still maintain that you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
You only dropped this utterly illogical position when I demonstrated to you that you also believe that science is not infallible yet are not a relativist.
I used your lack of belief in relativist TO PROVE MY POINT. So why the heck would I be calling you relativist. Relativism was your accusation against me because I maintain that science can be wrong
Which is like proving to you that you in fact support Obama but are not a communist, thus nullifying your claim that to support Obama is to be a communist.
I do find it hilarious that even after all this discussion you still don't get that this is what I was doing. You must follow only 10% of our conversation at any one time0 -
Advertisement
-
Message 13 I ask: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
Your reply : Again, yes.
It was equated with creationism!
No it wasn't. It was only equated with creationism in your head because you held that to the idea that believing science can be wrong is implying relativism. So when I said science can be wrong you jumped to me saying relativism.
That was you messing up ISAW. Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar, the only thing I've ever accused you of is this.When you answer YES to a question Could science be wrong and kooks be right? what do you expect someone to assume?
I expect someone who understands science and relativism to assume I mean exactly what I say, that it is possible science can could be wrong and any alternative theory, including Creationism, correct instead.
And in case there is an doubt I'm implying you don't understand science.all this by the way is a side issue to the lies you are telling about me! One I did not want to get into until you admit you were lying about me holding a relativist position.
I have never told a single lie about you.
You believed that me saying science can be wrong meant that I must be supporting relativism and I called you on this.
You are now just back tracking trying to say you never assumed I supported relativism even though you know you can't find any quote from me where I actually said I supported relativism (and quite a few where I said the opposite)
Face it, you messed up. :rolleyes:
You assumed I held a position I never did based on faulty logic in your own head. When I pointed that out to you you went on the defensive and tried to make it out that I was accusing you of something unreasonable.0 -
No it wasn't. It was only equated with creationism in your head
It is in the actual written words used ! Are you denying message 13 contained the words:
" Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative" as part of the question i asked?
So it WAS NOT something ONLY in my head! It was actually written down in the question to which you replied "YES"!because you held that to the idea that believing science can be wrong is implying relativism.
Back to your lies! I never held to that idea and I never claimed that believing science is wrong can be used to logically conlude that person is a relativist!
I LATER ( after you accused Me with the lies you continually rehearse about me being a relativist and not understanding Kuhn - something you try to avoid with your straw man weak epistemological arguments)
commented that you can't seriously endorse the idea of kook theories as an alternative to science since in so doing one degrades science and promotes kooks.So when I said science can be wrong you jumped to me saying relativism.
This is your straw man! You said science can be wrong AND kook alternatives be right!
Me: What ? That science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?
you:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68467333&postcount=13Again, yes.
Scientific theories can be wrong, even the ones that have tons of evidence supporting them. It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct.That was you messing up ISAW. Stop trying to make this out that I'm calling you a liar,
Another straw man! The truth is I am calling YOU a liar! You keep getting all muddled up
I am calling you a liar because
1. ISAW does not understand Kuhn or anyone else he quotes.
2. ISAW holds since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
1 and 2 are lies!I expect someone who understands science and relativism to assume I mean exactly what I say,
LOL a relativist might say there is no exact meaning!
What EXACTLY you stated
Message 4
A common misinterpretation...[of Kuhn] is a case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science. Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.
You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
[/quote]that it is possible science can could be wrong and any alternative theory, including Creationism, correct instead.
Yup. And anyone who believes such kook nonsense is correct is a kook!
And in case there is an doubt I'm implying you don't understand science.I have never told a single lie about you.
Adding to the lies now?
since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
Is that my belief? Yes or no?
Do I hold to that belief? Yes or no?
Did I ever hold to it? Yes or no?
Now if and when you say NO to all of the above you can get on to admitting you were WRONG in claiming I hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
And when you do that I will say you aren't telling lies about me any more.
Otherwise you ARE lying about me since I do not hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. It is is not true . You cant show it to be true and I have shown you and told you it is untrue and I do not hold that position.
But you keep coming back and claiming I hold or held at any time that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the otherYou believed that me saying science can be wrong meant that I must be supporting relativism and I called you on this.
No I didn't. I didn't know for certain. When you stated that creationism could be right I was incredulous and did not accept you could make such a statement as a principle of science. You may still not believe in kook theories but saying science has to accept that other kook theories could be right is just endorsing relativism as Kuhn defined it in the quote you offered only one or two messages before you were asked that question.You are now just back tracking trying to say you never assumed I supported relativism
That isnt true either. I didnt know at first and after you incredulous remark about creationism as an alternative to science being possibly true I did accept that you were endorsing it and rejecting the reason in science.
Her eis a way THe Pope put it.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and ReflectionsThe decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this:
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.[7]even though you know you can't find any quote from me where I actually said I supported relativism (and quite a few where I said the opposite)
Relativists not relativism. One might not like Nazis or believe their theories but still give them support.
You offered a definition for relativism. You claimed I was a person that subscribed to it.
You are now trying to conceal this lie!
The points about you came later
You stated that "science could be wrong and Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative be right?"
You stated that "It is possible (though looks unlikely) that current scientific models of say the age of the Earth are wrong and the idea put forward by Biblical creationism that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is correct."
If science could be wrong and kook theory right
You assumed I held a position I never did based on faulty logic in your own head. When I pointed that out to you you went on the defensive and tried to make it out that I was accusing you of something unreasonable.
YOU are the one that claimed all science is about being accurate!
If it is accurate claims can be measured or shown true or false
You claimed I held since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
You can't support this ( burden of proof on you)http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Your only support is a straw man http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
That I claimed you were a relativist. ( in fact I claimed you supported relativists)
which has nothing to do with you claiming I was one.
Aniother straw man was an appeal to ignorance i.e. why else would I accuse you of something unless I was a relativist since relativists would accuse you of the same thing
It is affirming a consequent!
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html
So you can't show something to be true.
Lie= knowing something isn not true and continually claiming it to be true.
You continually claim I held or hold that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
Given you cant support your claim and continually claim it you are a liar!0 -
Lets nip this is the bud because you are consistently using this straw man as an excuse to not answer my question.
Nope. I let it go. Even after you tried to redicule me. You continually raise it. so when you raise it you have to defend it!I NEVER called you a relativist.
Liar!
Your definition of relativism:[message 4]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463591&postcount=4
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY YOU calling me a relativist by the very definition supplied by youa case for relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Immediately followed by an Annie Hall Clip in an attempt to redicule me and claim I dont understand Kuhn!I said that you believe that if science can be wrong then that implies relativism.
You stated Icertainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.If I claim you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist I am not saying you are a communist!
Here is whatt you claimed:certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Not
butsupport those who hold the notion
certainly seem to hold the notion
I'm saying that you believe that to support Obama is to be a communist.
You are equivocating!
Here is what you stated:certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Was whay you stated wrong?
Did you actually mean to state something else?
If so admit you were wrong and don't try to lie about it later and ressurect it and we can move on.Equally when I say you believe that if science is wrong that means relativism I'm not saying you are a relativist. I'm saying you believe that believing science is wrong is to believe in relativism.
More equivocation
You stated
certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Immediately following your definition:relativism: the view that all kinds of belief systems are equal, such that magic, religious concepts or pseudoscience would be of equal working value to true science.I still maintain that you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
Which is the lie you keep resurrecting even when you are skewered by logic!
I NEVER made such a claim!
You cant porvide ANY evidence I did. You pretend that isnt what you mean when challenged and then later you rehearse the lie!You only dropped this utterly illogical position
Ther you go again lying and re entering the lie!I NEVER called you a relativist.
Becames contradicted by you held to the notion that if no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
I never held such a notion. that is a lie!I used your lack of belief in relativist TO PROVE MY POINT.
Belief or lack of it has nothing to do with logical proof!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html
or in this instance:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.htmlSo why the heck would I be calling you relativist.
That is a different issue. I do not know. It may be because you prefer to lie rather than honestly admit you are wrong or contradictory. I honestly don't know. But it is off topic.Which is like proving to you that you in fact support Obama but are not a communist, thus nullifying your claim that to support Obama is to be a communist.
More fey logic based on false premise.I do find it hilarious that even after all this discussion you still don't get that this is what I was doing. You must follow only 10% of our conversation at any one time
Making sweeping statements about your grand strategy isnt dismnissing the lies that
1. You claimed I held to relativism as defined by Kuhn
2. You claimed I didnt understand Kuhn.
It is right there in message 4!0 -
It is in the actual written words used ! Are you denying message 13 contained the words:
" Biblical fundamentalist creationism as an alternative" as part of the question i asked?
So it WAS NOT something ONLY in my head! It was actually written down in the question to which you replied "YES"!
Please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science (never mind you do that below, thus demonstrating my point once again about your faulty belief). :rolleyes:
You asked me could science be wrong and Creationism correct, and I said yes. That is a truthful answer to the question you asked me. I later explained that I thought it was very unlikely that Creationism was correct but you ignored that bit and continued to charge me with believing non-scientific theories are as equally valid as scientific ones, a conclusion you reached based on your own faulty logic.
If you had asked me is Creationism equal to scientific theories I would have said no. But that isn't what you asked me.
So again ALL IN YOUR HEAD :rolleyes:You said science can be wrong AND kook alternatives be right!
And did I say there was an equal chance of this? No.
Did I say that means that "kook alternatives" should be treated as equals to scientific theories? No.
Did you assume that must have been what I was saying based on YOUR faulty logic. Yes.
Did I point out this faulty logic to you? Yes.
Did you start back tracking straight away once you realized your mistake? Yes.Yup. And anyone who believes such kook nonsense is correct is a kook!
I agree. I don't believe Creationism correct, so I guess that means I'm not a kook.Now if and when you say NO to all of the above you can get on to admitting you were WRONG in claiming I hold since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other
And when you do that I will say you aren't telling lies about me any more.
I stand over exactly what I said.
I said You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other. It seemed that way because I could see no other explanation for why you were accusing me of relativism over what I said.
And I still believe that and you provided more evidence for this below.
I stand over that because when I said science could be wrong (ie not perfect or infallible) and Creationism could be right you charged me with support relativism and saying that I must believe therefore that Creationism and pixies and Santa are equally valid as science, even though I never stated anything close to this.
I have asked you to explain how you took this jump of logic if you didn't hold to this position I've charged you with and you haven't, you have simply done everything in your power to avoid answer that question.
So I stand over exactly what I said.No I didn't. I didn't know for certain.
You have provided no other explanation that explains your responses to my replies. I stand over what I said.When you stated that creationism could be right I was incredulous and did not accept you could make such a statement as a principle of science.
Why were you incredulous when I said this?
Perhaps because at the time you held that if science wasn't perfect it must mean I was saying Creationism is equal in valid and worth and so when I say science isn't perfect you jump to the conclusion that this is my position on relativism? Just a thought :rolleyes:You may still not believe in kook theories but saying science has to accept that other kook theories could be right is just endorsing relativism
You are doing it again!! Seriously, read back what you are posting.
It is ONLY saying science has to accept other kook theories (ie they are of equal valid) IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE NOT BEING PERFECT MEANS OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.
Saying Creationism could be right is only saying it is equal to science is you hold to this faulty logic.
I don't hold to this faulty logic, which is why I NEVER said science was equal to Creationism.
Thank you for very kindly providing me all the support I need for my original charge against you. :rolleyes:
You have confirmed for me that what I thought you were saying, what you seemed to be saying, was what you were saying.
The faulty logic exists ONLY in your head ISAW.
Seriously, why do you do this to yourself?0 -
Please quote where you think I said Creationism is equal to science (never mind you do that below, thus demonstrating my point once again about your faulty belief). :rolleyes:
You asked me could science be wrong and Creationism correct, and I said yes.
Yes AFTER you quoted Kuhn saiud I didnt understanf Kuhn referred to woody allen and claimed I was a relativist.That is a truthful answer to the question you asked me.
So what? i didn't claim you lied about it! Your actual lie is saying you never claimed I was a relativist or subscribe to relativism as defined by you. that is a lie!I later explained that I thought it was very unlikely that Creationism was correct
So what this isn't about what you or i think but about whether the claims we made can be shown to be true or not. It isnt about opinion it is about claiming something is a fact.
I am not a relativist. that is a fact.
You claimed I was that is a fact
You are lying if you claim I am or if you say you did not claim I am.And did I say there was an equal chance of this? No.
Did I say that means that "kook alternatives" should be treated as equals to scientific theories? No.
What does a phrase like "science could be 100 per cent wrong and kook theories like paranormalism 100 per cent right" mean? It is either saying paranormal is acceptable or it is kook nonsense.
I agree. I don't believe Creationism correct, so I guess that means I'm not a kook.
No you are only a liar.I stand over exactly what I said.
I said You do certainly seem to hold to this notion that since no system is perfect all systems of belief are as equally valid as the other.
It is a lie! I don't hold to such a belief and you cant show that I do!It seemed that way because I could see no other explanation for why you were accusing me of relativism over what I said.
Rubbish! "Relativism" was first raised by YOU when you defined it and accused me of it!
In Post 4.
I said you endorsed relativists and kooks and I still say that
Do you believe science could be wrong and kook nonsense 100 per cent right?I stand over that because when I said science could be wrong (ie not perfect or infallible) and Creationism could be right you charged me with support relativism and saying that I must believe therefore that Creationism and pixies and Santa are equally valid as science, even though I never stated anything close to this.
That came later AFTER going over this several times. Santa only arrived on page 6 or so!
The truth is you made claims you couldnt support
1. I didnt understand Kuhn
2. I was a relativist
You tried to ridicule me
I pointed out yoy were wrong and left it at that
But you just keepo coming back re asserting your lie!
I can NOT leave that go
1 and 2 are lies! No amount of misdirection will get you away from that.
So I stand over exactly what I said.
Then you are a liar!
1 and 2 are lies!You have provided no other explanation that explains your responses to my replies. I stand over what I said.
Straw man! 1 and 2 a lies! Nor do I have to prove a negative or explain anything! The burden is on you to prove 1 and 2.
You cant since they are lies!Why were you incredulous when I said this?
Because I didnt believe you would endorse kook nonsense by saying it could be true and that was a central principle of science!Perhaps because at the time you held that if science wasn't perfect it must mean I was saying Creationism is equal in valid and worth and so when I say science isn't perfect you jump to the conclusion that this is my position on relativism? Just a thought :rolleyes:
Only if you say
A: science may not be perfect and actually specifically state creationism as an alternative to scince might well be true and
B that science holds A as a central priniple
I have showed you the "faith and reason" position on this!It is ONLY saying science has to accept other kook theories (ie they are of equal valid) IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE NOT BEING PERFECT MEANS OTHER NON-SCIENTIFIC SYSTEMS ARE OF EQUAL VALUE.
No it isn't! You say it is a central principle of science that science could be totally wrong ( or even more wrong than alternatives) and kookiness 100 per cent right ( or even better most of the time) . i.e. not equal but the other one more accurate than science.
Calling them equal isnt the only kook option!Saying Creationism could be right is only saying it is equal to science is you hold to this faulty logic.
No . Saying it is right is saying science is wrong! You seem to not be aware of boolean operators.
But the real issue is your lying aboiut me being a relativist and you deny this but again and agasin rehearse it when you get the chance . When challenged you try a series of straw man arguments.
e truth is you made claims you couldnt support
1. I didnt understand Kuhn
2. I was a relativist
You tried to ridicule me
I pointed out yoy were wrong and left it at that
But you just keepo coming back re asserting your lie!
I can NOT leave that go
1 and 2 are lies! No amount of misdirection will get you away from that.0 -
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqp3KXDu9qE
Advertisement