The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Catastrophism isn't just leaning Gould's way, it's fallen well past it. Gould's punctuated equilibrium is still a gradualist theory, as 'punctuations' can span millions of years.

Well not really. Maybe a million. Thats a million in sixty or so million. Hardly gradual. And the "punctuation" ARE catastrophes, e.g. volcanos or extraterrestrial impacts!

Furthermore, catastrophism has been debunked by geologists for quite a while, and now only exists in the creationist "You can't prove it didn't happen." form.

Punctuated evolution is a form of catastrophism in my definition.

The real key behind the fossil record is how the developmental history of life maps onto the geographical history of life.

Geography in terms of todays continents are entirely different from the original continents. In fact much of the "original" is permanently missing as much of any crust is subducted over tens of millions of years and the planet is thousand of millions of years old.

In otherwords, not only do we see a trend from simple to complex, we see a trend of migration and change of habitat that matches this development.

You can't really argue that vulcanism is "evolving" from simple to complex.

gaynorvader

ISAW wrote: »

Well not really. Maybe a million. Thats a million in sixty or so million. Hardly gradual. And the "punctuation" ARE catastrophes, e.g. volcanos or extraterrestrial impacts!

...

So a million years is a short amount of time to you?!

wolfsbane

mehfesto wrote: »

Genuine question here:
How is evolution refuted with 'recent examples', such as MRSA or VRSA (something that evolved to be resistant to methicillin/vancomycin)? Is this regarded as something other than evolution?

As some of your fellow-evolutionists pointed out, the evolution here is not of bacteria into something Sigourney Weaver frys in 'Alien'. It is of bacteria into bacteria. As in varieties of dogs. Or even coffee-coloured men into a spectrum from black to white. Or a more recent example:
Natural selection is being observed in contemporary human populations, with recent findings demonstrating the population which is at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. Scientists postulate one of the reasons for the rapid selection of this genetic variant is the lethality of the disease in non-immune persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Still the same basic creature.

I know some of you will say that such a change in man is no different than of the supposed first self-replicating molecules to man. But such extrapolation cannot be taken as given. It has to be demonstrated. Does the fossil record/geological column do so? Both sides make their case for or against.

_________________________________________________________________
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/06/feedback-bunny-fossils

gaynorvader

wolfsbane wrote: »

As some of your fellow-evolutionists pointed out, the evolution here is not of bacteria into something Sigourney Weaver frys in 'Alien'. It is of bacteria into bacteria. As in varieties of dogs. Or even coffee-coloured men into a spectrum from black to white. Or a more recent example:
Natural selection is being observed in contemporary human populations, with recent findings demonstrating the population which is at risk of the severe debilitating disease kuru has significant over-representation of an immune variant of the prion protein gene G127V versus non-immune alleles. Scientists postulate one of the reasons for the rapid selection of this genetic variant is the lethality of the disease in non-immune persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Still the same basic creature.

I know some of you will say that such a change in man is no different than of the supposed first self-replicating molecules to man. But such extrapolation cannot be taken as given. It has to be demonstrated. Does the fossil record/geological column do so? Both sides make their case for or against.

The same evidence could be used to show that evolution is a slow process. Plus we could speculate (probably proof that I'm not aware of too) that at some point in the past there was something which shares characteristics with all mammals (for arguments sake) and these took several different evolutionary paths to get down to humans and whatever else you'd like to mention.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You are conflating two issues here.

1. Biological evolution of a species
2. abiogenesis - the spontaneous creation of life

They aren't the same thing.

I think by "molecules to man" biological evolution was being referenced.

Non-replicating molecules to self-replicating molecules is abiogenesis.

ISAW wrote: »

As regards strict Darwinian evolution. Personally I don't accept it. It seems too gradualist. I go more for a catastrophist view e.g deluges and disasters. in fact a lot if not almost all fossil evidence came from catastrophes. I tend to lean Goulds way on this.

Fair enough. You appreciate thought that scientists are not simply looking at the modern examples of evolution and going That is what must have happened in the past. There is a wealth of evidence that supports the idea that this is what happened in the past.

ISAW wrote: »

If you mean there are dated fossils of unicellular lifeforms and others there aren't loads and dates are disputed.

I didn't claim there were loads and the disputed dates are over exact dates, not whether it was 3 billion years ago or 6 thousand years ago.

ISAW wrote: »

But again from a catastrophist point of view this doesn't happen o9ver time but quite quickly.

Define "quite quickly"

ISAW wrote: »

It would be nice of they could use DNA matching but sadly they have to depend on matching shapes and guessing climates. I agree it isn't all a guess but neither is it exact science. More like an estimate???

An estimate with in ranges.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is of bacteria into bacteria.

Bacteria is a Domain in biological classification. There is only one classification above that, alive or not alive

Saying it is basically the same creature would be the equivalent of me giving birth to a lizard and saying Ah sure it is basically the same creature, it has 2 eyes and 4 legs doesn't it :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

And for thousands of years we thought boiling water was releasing the fire in the water :rolleyes:

Then science came along.

Knowing something is happening is not science. Having a model of why it is happening is science. That is the difference between an observed phenomena and the scientific model explaining the observed phenomena.



No it isn't. First scientists don't "look at the fossil record". They develop theories of biological evolution and then compare the predictions of said theories to the fossil record. And secondly even if they are wrong evolution is still not a guess. It is a scientific theory and matches all the standards of a scientific theory, again even if they are wrong.

But considering you don't seem to have the foggiest idea about science, nor do you seem in anyway interested in learning, I'm losing patience trying to explain it to you.

Not guessing? OK, let me rephrase it - educated guessing. Not an unworthy thing. Not operational science, but science nevertheless. My beef is that so many evolutionists regard it as certain as what can be demonstrated in the lab.

I'm sorry my skepticism irritates you. If only JC was here to give you something to really worry about!
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not guessing? OK, let me rephrase it - educated guessing. Not an unworthy thing. Not operational science, but science nevertheless.

Groan

Science is not educated guessing. The whole fact that you are guessing means you can't tell how accurate you are or not (otherwise it wouldn't be a guess), which means it is not science.

You are ignoring the feed back scientists get from comparison of predictions from models with observation. It is not guessing, educated or otherwise. It simply isn't. If you want to argue it is wrong or flawed go ahead, but stop pretending it is something it isn't. Creationism is guessing, and it is disingenuous to assert that because Creationism is science also is. Creationism isn't science. That is the whole point.

wolfsbane wrote: »

My beef is that so many evolutionists regard it as certain as what can be demonstrated in the lab.

No they don't. They regard it as very accurate because the big bit you are ignoring, the confirmation of model predictions, has been done so many times.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry my skepticism irritates you.

It is not your skepticism Wolfsbane, you refuse to properly listen to or explore any views that contradict your own pre-conceived religious beliefs, hidden behind a fake concern that scientific standards are not being meet. It is your dogged close-minded-ness

Which makes your claims all the more ironic, the idea that all these scientists are some how failing to reach a standard of epistemology that you would be satisfied with but you some how know the certain truth because you read it in a book, or that Creationists know the truth even though they have done a tiny fraction of the tests that biologists have done and again due to religious belief refuse to do any more.

Which makes all your claims about concern that scientists are guessing too much utterly ridiculous.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Bacteria is a Domain in biological classification. There is only one classification above that, alive or not alive

Saying it is basically the same creature would be the equivalent of me giving birth to a lizard and saying Ah sure it is basically the same creature, it has 2 eyes and 4 legs doesn't it :rolleyes:

But domain is an artificial classification. Ordering life into relationships based on whatever one wants to choose. My library can be organised by book colour, thickness, depth, height, weight, author, publisher,etc. If I say green books are a domain and when one of them degrades into a blue tone due to a chemical reaction, is it fundamentally different? No, it is the same book, slightly changed.

Now if it morphed into a bookcase, you would have a point.

_________________________________________________________________
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, 'Billions and billions of demons", The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31)

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Well not really. Maybe a million. Thats a million in sixty or so million. Hardly gradual. And the "punctuation" ARE catastrophes, e.g. volcanos or extraterrestrial impacts!

Punctuated evolution is a form of catastrophism in my definition.

Ok, though I'm obliged to point out that your definition of catastrophism is not the typical one.

"Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[18] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[19] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[2]" ---Wikipedia

Geography in terms of todays continents are entirely different from the original continents. In fact much of the "original" is permanently missing as much of any crust is subducted over tens of millions of years and the planet is thousand of millions of years old.

You can't really argue that vulcanism is "evolving" from simple to complex.

By "geographic" I mean geographic location. In other words, species that are close to eachother in natural history are also close to eachother in terms of location.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But domain is an artificial classification.

So is

"Still the same basic creature."

You are basically saying that a bacteria evolving into a different form of bacteria is still the same basic creature. Under what criteria? Yours?

This is more nonsense Creationist barn yard biology. If a dog gave birth to a pig you would be saying it has 2 eyes, 4 legs, a tail, still the same basic creature.

There is nothing that will satisfy your criteria of what would "really" be evolution because you are deciding this arbitrarily and you have no interest in admitting that evolution actually takes place.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not guessing? OK, let me rephrase it - educated guessing. Not an unworthy thing. Not operational science, but science nevertheless.
Groan

Science is not educated guessing. The whole fact that you are guessing means you can't tell how accurate you are or not (otherwise it wouldn't be a guess), which means it is not science.

You are ignoring the feed back scientists get from comparison of predictions from models with observation.

No, I'm not ignoring them. That is what I mean by educated guessing - that one gets some data that might support the theory and then one claims the theory is right. It has not been proved correct.

It is not guessing, educated or otherwise. It simply isn't. If you want to argue it is wrong or flawed go ahead, but stop pretending it is something it isn't.

We maybe differ on our idea of what an educated guess is.

Creationism is guessing, and it is disingenuous to assert that because Creationism is science also is. Creationism isn't science. That is the whole point.

Your whole point is wrong. Creationism uses the same methodology as you, but the interpretation of the results differs. It however has the advantage of knowing the actual origins truth, while it tries to figure out the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My beef is that so many evolutionists regard it as certain as what can be demonstrated in the lab.
No they don't. They regard it as very accurate because the big bit you are ignoring, the confirmation of model predictions, has been done so many times.

What about the non-conformations, and the confirmations Creationism also has?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sorry my skepticism irritates you.
It is not your skepticism Wolfsbane, you refuse to properly listen to or explore any views that contradict your own pre-conceived religious beliefs, hidden behind a fake concern that scientific standards are not being meet. It is your dogged close-minded-ness

Which makes your claims all the more ironic, the idea that all these scientists are some how failing to reach a standard of epistemology that you would be satisfied with but you some how know the certain truth because you read it in a book, or that Creationists know the truth even though they have done a tiny fraction of the tests that biologists have done and again due to religious belief refuse to do any more.

I'm not a scientist, but I am able to detect flawed reasoning. I don't expect any scientist to advance history as scientific proof, no matter how sound that history is. I expect them to offer scientific arguments if they are claiming the science supports their understanding of history. And that's what Creation Science does. Creationists, however, are concerned with more than just science - they may make both theological and scientific arguments for their understanding of history. You have failed many times to make that distinction in your criticism of Creation Science.

The tests done by anyone are not in question. It is the assumptions involved and the interpretation of the results that is the issue. No one questions, for example, that a particular radioisotope decays at a particular rate today. But assumptions are made that it has always had that rate, and that it moved from full parent status to its present daughter status. Neither of those are beyond doubt.

_________________________________________________________________
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Dr Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

Morbert

Wolfsbane, you have made the same sweeping claims about creation science 'interpretation' over and over. Yet whenever we get into specifics to see if what you say is actually true, you stop participating. You can't have your cake and eat it.

SleepDoc

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

No, I'm not ignoring them. That is what I mean by educated guessing - that one gets some data that might support the theory and then one claims the theory is right. It has not been proved correct.


We maybe differ on our idea of what an educated guess is.


Your whole point is wrong. Creationism uses the same methodology as you, but the interpretation of the results differs. It however has the advantage of knowing the actual origins truth, while it tries to figure out the details.


What about the non-conformations, and the confirmations Creationism also has?


I'm not a scientist, but I am able to detect flawed reasoning. I don't expect any scientist to advance history as scientific proof, no matter how sound that history is. I expect them to offer scientific arguments if they are claiming the science supports their understanding of history. And that's what Creation Science does. Creationists, however, are concerned with more than just science - they may make both theological and scientific arguments for their understanding of history. You have failed many times to make that distinction in your criticism of Creation Science.

The tests done by anyone are not in question. It is the assumptions involved and the interpretation of the results that is the issue. No one questions, for example, that a particular radioisotope decays at a particular rate today. But assumptions are made that it has always had that rate, and that it moved from full parent status to its present daughter status. Neither of those are beyond doubt.

_________________________________________________________________
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Dr Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

Creationists don't use scientific evidence or its methodology. They take barely understood fragments and use it to support their ridiculous and cretinous assertions.

"Creation science" is an oxymoron.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

No, I'm not ignoring them. That is what I mean by educated guessing

There is no guessing. If you just want to leave in the educated bit that is fine, most scientists are educated.

wolfsbane wrote: »

- that one gets some data that might support the theory and then one claims the theory is right.

That is not science, evolutionary biology or any other are of science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We maybe differ on our idea of what an educated guess is.

I think we differ on our idea of what science is. You think science is what Creationists do, and then you think we are being hypocritical to complain about Creationists without applying the same criticism to mainstream science. The bit you aren't getting is you are correct that what you think science is is bad but that this isn't what science actually is. It is what Creationism is.

By criticizing "science" as basically nothing more than educated guessing you are simultaneous demonstrating that you don't know what science is and demonstrating all that is wrong with Creationism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationism uses the same methodology as you

No it doesn't, as your very post is demonstrating. You think science uses educated guessing because that is what Creationists use and you are assuming science must use that as well because you believe all the Creationist clap trap that they are doing proper science.

wolfsbane wrote: »

but the interpretation of the results differs

Interpretation of results is not science. It is educated guessing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What about the non-conformations, and the confirmations Creationism also has?

Non-confirmations demonstrate there is a problem with the model, the model is updated. That is science. You either know if you are accurate or inaccurate. There is no guessing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not a scientist, but I am able to detect flawed reasoning.

I don't think it is anything to do with detecting flawed reasoning and everything to do with your need to find things to confirm to you that your religious belief is correct. You appear to have zero interest in science and scientific methodology. The only thing you seem to care about is the position that Creationism is valid because that is based on your pre-conceived idea that what you belief must be true.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't expect any scientist to advance history as scientific proof, no matter how sound that history is.

There is no such thing as scientific proof. You no more prove something in a lab than you prove it out on a river bed looking at fossils.

Again Wolfsbane you appear to have no idea what science is, which makes your claims that Creationists are doing science rather ridiculous.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I expect them to offer scientific arguments if they are claiming the science supports their understanding of history.

Arguments are irrelevant. Science is not educated guess. It is is not saying "Umm, I think this is might be happening here based on this educated guess I just made".

Creationists do not need to put forward arguments they need to put forward results. They need to put forward a ton of models that accurately predict observation. They aren't doing that.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The tests done by anyone are not in question. It is the assumptions involved and the interpretation of the results that is the issue.

Not it isn't. In science you have to test your models. You don't guess at what the data means.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No one questions, for example, that a particular radioisotope decays at a particular rate today. But assumptions are made that it has always had that rate

No they don't. Scientists don't guess that they decayed at the same rate. The construct models where they do decay at the same rate and then they test these models against observation.

For example if they didn't decay at the same rate then why is the model of unified decay rate accurately predicting the light received from supernovas?

It is nothing to do with interpretation. The model either predicts observation or it doesn't. If the model is wrong then it shouldn't be able to consistently and accurately predict observations like light from supernovas.

Once again science is not guessing. Whether your model predicts observation is not open to subjective assessment.

gaynorvader

wolfsbane wrote: »

...
Your whole point is wrong. Creationism uses the same methodology as you, but the interpretation of the results differs. It however has the advantage of knowing the actual origins truth, while it tries to figure out the details.
...

Um...so what you're saying is scientists need to provide proof in order for you to accept evolution, yet Creationists "knowing" something requires no evidence? Why is this? What methods did they use to arrive at their conclusions? What irrefutable proof?

ISAW

gaynorvader wrote: »

So a million years is a short amount of time to you?!

In terms of evolution and geological time yes of course it is! A million years is quite short in terms of an earth being thousands of millions of years old and a univers tens of thousands of millions of years old. You are well aware of that are you not? In fact take human beings. they are only on the earth for about half a million to a million years and this is peanuts compared to other organisms. the entire history of civilization is only tens of thousands of years at most and that is tiny compared to evolution of species.

gaynorvader

ISAW wrote: »

In terms of evolution and geological time yes of course it is! A million years is quite short in terms of an earth being thousands of millions of years old and a univers tens of thousands of millions of years old. You are well aware of that are you not? In fact take human beings. they are only on the earth for about half a million to a million years and this is peanuts compared to other organisms. the entire history of civilization is only tens of thousands of years at most and that is tiny compared to evolution of species.

Evolution is different for different things and often drastic changes are only made in reaction to some change in the environment, and yes this can cause evolution to work comparatively quickly, but I'm not sure why this is an issue.

Overheal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Um...so what you're saying is scientists need to provide proof in order for you to accept evolution, yet Creationists "knowing" something requires no evidence? Why is this? What methods did they use to arrive at their conclusions? What irrefutable proof?

wowwwww............ If it isn't Gaynor. Hollly sh*t. the **** you been

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

Um...so what you're saying is scientists need to provide proof in order for you to accept evolution, yet Creationists "knowing" something requires no evidence? Why is this? What methods did they use to arrive at their conclusions? What irrefutable proof?

What you seem to be doing here is pushing one philosophy of science forward as if it has more to recommend it than another. Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Pascal, Watt, Joule, Herschel, Morse, Bacon ... are just some of the illustrious fathers of the modern scientific method who were also firm believers in the biblical God. Their conviction of God as ordered, logical and rational led them to conclude that his creation would be best investigated in similar fashion. Thus did alchemy become chemistry.

There is nothing unscientific about knowing Godidit then finding out how he did it. It just happens to conflict with a philosophy of science which suggests the destiny of the investigation is unknown at the outset.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing unscientific about knowing Godidit then finding out how he did it. It just happens to conflict with a philosophy of science which suggests the destiny of the investigation is unknown at the outset.

You just contradicted yourself in that paragraph.

It is unscientific to think you know "God did it" if you can't support that scientifically, because the philosophy of science says we can't confidently say we know things unless we can support them scientifically.

Or think of it the other way. If it is not necessary to use science to be confident of saying we know something then what is the purpose of science?

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great talk about how damaging "God did it" can be to scientific discovery, pointing out that Newton could have easily come up what Laplace did 150 years later but didn't because he was content with "God did it". Laplace didn't use anything that would not have been available to Newton, but Newton was content with "God did it" where as Laplace wanted to actually explain it.

Thus resulting in one of the most famous scientific quotes of all time

"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là". ("I had no need of that hypothesis")

And the history of science is littered with such examples, where people stop discovery because they feel an area is the realm of supernatural interactions of God, only to have people later come along and show God is not required to explain it. God is pushed out a bit more and the cycle repeats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you seem to be doing here is pushing one philosophy of science forward as if it has more to recommend it than another. Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Pascal, Watt, Joule, Herschel, Morse, Bacon ... are just some of the illustrious fathers of the modern scientific method who were also firm believers in the biblical God. Their conviction of God as ordered, logical and rational led them to conclude that his creation would be best investigated in similar fashion. Thus did alchemy become chemistry.

Why is this relevant? Much of modern mathematics came from various Greeks whom believed in Apollo, Aphrodite, Helios, etc. Does this mean that their gods are real? Your point is ridiculous.

There is nothing unscientific about knowing Godidit then finding out how he did it. It just happens to conflict with a philosophy of science which suggests the destiny of the investigation is unknown at the outset.

There is nothing unscientific about theorising that God did it and then testing that theory to see if it's true. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up.

My main question however is why should creationist scientists be allowed have a different standard of evidence to other scientists? What or who gave them this "knowledge"? Because to me, it seems they read one book and took what it said as true without even considering the "facts" written in any other books to be true. Which is about as unscientific as you can get.

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why is this relevant? Much of modern mathematics came from various Greeks whom believed in Apollo, Aphrodite, Helios, etc. Does this mean that their gods are real? Your point is ridiculous.

My point was that you've a philosophy about science. Philosophy about science isn't science.

There is nothing unscientific about theorising that God did it and then testing that theory to see if it's true. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold up.

More philosophy about science.

My main question however is why should creationist scientists be allowed have a different standard of evidence to other scientists?

I'm not suggesting that they be allowed. My point had to do with a claim you were making about science. A rather strange claim given the belief systems and motivations of some of the illustrious people who actually founded the modern scientific method.

What or who gave them this "knowledge"? Because to me, it seems they read one book and took what it said as true without even considering the "facts" written in any other books to be true. Which is about as unscientific as you can get.

More philosophy. This time a philosophy about knowledge. Unfortunately for this philosophy it cannot be shown to be knowledge by the only system you say can provide knowledge.

You refute yourself in other words.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

More philosophy. This time a philosophy about knowledge. Unfortunately for this philosophy it cannot be shown to be knowledge by the only system you say can provide knowledge.

You refute yourself in other words.

That isn't true. You can test the scientific validity of science using science.

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point was that you've a philosophy about science. Philosophy about science isn't science.

More philosophy about science.

A philosophy about science? It's the philosophy about science:
Wikipedia
Center for the Study of Complex Systems
angelfire

antiskeptic wrote:

I'm not suggesting that they be allowed. My point had to do with a claim you were making about science. A rather strange claim given the belief systems and motivations of some of the illustrious people who actually founded the modern scientific method.

And what is this supposed claim I'm making? I can't see any claim I've made that would impact on what scientists of the past believed.

antiskeptic wrote:

More philosophy. This time a philosophy about knowledge. Unfortunately for this philosophy it cannot be shown to be knowledge by the only system you say can provide knowledge.

Well, why would you define it as knowledge then?

antiskeptic wrote:

You refute yourself in other words.

I don't think I do, and can't even see where you are getting that from.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. You can test the scientific validity of science using science.

The point being addressed was the claim that one would need to read the other books (holy books) before knowing the one book was true. That can't be shown scientifically. Nor can the claim that the only knowledge is scientific knowlege be shown to be true scientifically. Rendering the view but philosophical.

Please don't be peeved that I don't address your request to provide (empirically of course) other means whereby knowledge can be gleaned. The purpose here is to show the philosophical claim re: knowledge refutes itself.

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point being addressed was the claim that one would need to read the other books (holy books) before knowing the one book was true. That can't be shown scientifically. Nor can the claim that the only knowledge is scientific knowlege be shown to be true scientifically. Rendering the view but philosophical.

...

Of course you can't! How could you? You can't know that Hobbits aren't real without investigating other books, you can't know that talking lions aren't real without reading other books. Why should the Bible or the Koran be any different? You can't claim to know something based solely on one viewpoint, that's just silly.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor can the claim that the only knowledge is scientific knowlege be shown to be true scientifically. Rendering the view but philosophical.

That isn't the philosophical position so you are inventing a straw man.

Science can't show something is true, so you can't use the scientific methodology to show something is true, including the scientific method.

But since that isn't the claim of science it is irrelevant to determining the accuracy of the scientific method. Science doesn't claim to be true.

You can show that the scientific method appears to increases the collection of apparently accurate models through the scientific method. So it can verify itself. It just can't verify itself based on you claim. But since you claim isn't what science claims it is some what irrelevant.

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

A philosophy about science? It's the philosophy about science:

But these founding fathers of the scientific method had a different philosophy of science. How can there be but one philosophy when there are patently more than one?

And what is this supposed claim I'm making? I can't see any claim I've made that would impact on what scientists of the past believed.

The claim that using scientific method to find out how God did it isn't science

Well, why would you define it as knowledge then?

I'm not. You seem to be. You seem to treat a particular philosophy of what constitutes knowledge as knowledge - instead of philosophy.

I don't think I do, and can't even see where you are getting that from.

If you are suggesting that only science can produce knowledge then that particular piece of knowledge (that only science can produce knowledge) must be something you can arrive at scientifically. But you can't do that - therefore you refute yourself.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

You just contradicted yourself in that paragraph.

It is unscientific to think you know "God did it" if you can't support that scientifically, because the philosophy of science says we can't confidently say we know things unless we can support them scientifically.

Let us just adopt a terminology we all agree to shall we?

Ontology - how we know about it
Epistemology ~what we know
Empirisism ~ measuring things
There is no single "philosophy of science"

You are saying epistemology recapitulates ontology in an empirical sense.
Or that the very least that epistemology is ontologically determined.

This "philosophy of science" isn't necessarily true. in other words, when exposed to the principle you suggest you can't prove it, it is a philosophical axiom, a tautology.

In otherwords that "you can't really know things unless you can support them scientifically" can't be proven scientifically ! Or if it can it only can in the sense that you define things by circular reasoning i.e. that "proven scientifically" = something you really know for certain.

Or think of it the other way. If it is not necessary to use science to be confident of saying we know something then what is the purpose of science?

Well there an a myriad answers to that and the question betrays your positivist empiricist stance. For exmple one answer might be to say it might be necessary to use science to enable us to be confident of what we do not know.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great talk about how damaging "God did it" can be to scientific discovery, pointing out that Newton could have easily come up what Laplace did 150 years later but didn't because he was content with "God did it". Laplace didn't use anything that would not have been available to Newton, but Newton was content with "God did it" where as Laplace wanted to actually explain it.

But this argument can be easily extended to any fundamentalist belief. It isn't a sufficient argument to demonstrate that belief in any God is a hindrance to scientific progress.

history of science is littered with such examples, where people stop discovery because they feel an area is the realm of supernatural interactions of God, only to have people later come along and show God is not required to explain it. God is pushed out a bit more and the cycle repeats.

the "God of the gaps " fallacy you can look up elsewher but again this isnt sufficient because history is also littered with non God connected failures to advance or develop because people were content with the syatem they had. e.g. shogun and not adopting the technological advance of the Gun.

What do you mean by "advance" or "develop" anyway? How can you deal with it without some value judgement which is not scientifically provable?