- 857
- 43
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
Originally Posted by sillyputty
Originally Posted by Fade On You
Just wanted to give props to sillyputty and pleasurephd for dropping mad knowledge and info in this thread.
Gentlemen
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by sillyputty
Originally Posted by Fade On You
Just wanted to give props to sillyputty and pleasurephd for dropping mad knowledge and info in this thread.
Gentlemen
I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains. Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it. And you know why?Originally Posted by bboy1827
The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory. I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything. People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.Originally Posted by sillyputty
Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.
I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?
Philosophy is a dying craft.
Science evolves.
I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...
Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it
BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.
Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.
When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?
Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.
It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"
And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.
FYI I have a degree in phil too.
This very component of scientific theory and method is what makes it the best possible tool with which we can CURRENTLY investigate the world.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it. And you know why?Originally Posted by bboy1827
The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory. I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything. People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.Originally Posted by sillyputty
Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.
I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?
Philosophy is a dying craft.
Science evolves.
I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...
Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it
BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.
Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.
When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?
Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.
It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"
And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.
FYI I have a degree in phil too.
Originally Posted by bboy1827
I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains. Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it. And you know why?Originally Posted by bboy1827
The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory. I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything. People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.
BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.
Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.
When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?
Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.
It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"
And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.
FYI I have a degree in phil too.As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.
How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theores, which could always be false. You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?Originally Posted by sillyputty
I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.
Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction.
Thats it.
If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced.
No one disputes this.Originally Posted by bboy1827
I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain.
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?Originally Posted by sillyputty
Originally Posted by bboy1827
I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.
Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction.
Thats it.
If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced.
1. With the tech they had back then? What tech was that? How did they test the world was flat? THEY DIDN'T! Individuals only speculated. UNLIKE today where we speculate AND TEST. CAN'T YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't then you're hopeless.Originally Posted by bboy1827
1. I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains. Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it. And you know why?Originally Posted by bboy1827
The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory. I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything. People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.
BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.
Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.
When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?
Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.
It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"
And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.
FYI I have a degree in phil too.As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.
2. How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theories, which could always be false. You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.
3. Besides one of the most basic methodologies of Science (the Socratic Method) which is still taught in Physics and Biology classes alike, or at least it was taught in my Physics and Bio 101 n 102, gets it's name because it was the method by which a Philosopher, Socrates, conducted his thoughts. Thousands of years later, we still haven't found a better method of inquiry and analysis? Meaning that those "old world" philosophers were conducting experimentation in the very same methods as we use today.
As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.Originally Posted by sillyputty
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?Originally Posted by sillyputty
I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.
Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction.
Thats it.
If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced.
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable?
Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.
Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther.
Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong.
AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...
THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
The point is...
HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?
Observation only the first step in the scientific method developed by Galileo, not Socrates. We also do physical tests, theoretical modeling, and mathematical testing.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?Originally Posted by sillyputty
Originally Posted by bboy1827
I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.
Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction.
Thats it.
If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced.
You seem more argumentative than "smart"/ "informed". To say the Ancients didn't have "Tech" is to not understand "Tech." To say that the "Socratic Method" isn't the base method for science and philosophy the like is a fallacy. Galileo used the Socratic Method -_- google it/read a book. And to not understand that All Doctors/Scientits are "philosophers" since "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" and PhD, which is at the end of your Screename stands for "Doctoris Philosophea" or "Doctor of Philosophy" is a lack of knowledge.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
1. With the tech they had back then? What tech was that? How did they test the world was flat? THEY DIDN'T! Individuals only speculated. UNLIKE today where we speculate AND TEST. CAN'T YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? If you can't then you're hopeless.Originally Posted by bboy1827
1. I think science "evolving" is proof that science isn't ever certain. You really want to be argumentative, but the fact remains. Years ago, with all the technology they had back then, they thought that the world was flat, 50 years ago we thought the Atom was the smallest element in the Universe.Originally Posted by PleasurePhD
That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it. And you know why?
BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.
Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.
When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?
Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.
It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"
And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.
FYI I have a degree in phil too.As I stated with every generation they "know" what they "know" but the next Generation changes it, with better technology etc.
2. How did you get a degree in Philosophy without having a solid understanding of Skepticism? I don't think you can get pass the "something from nothing" nor the "mind-body" distinction. Nor the fact that The future doesn't have to repeat the past, which science is based on. What proof do you have that when I throw a brick, that brick is the reason that the window broke? All you will be able to throw at me is complicated observations and even more complicated theories, which could always be false. You preach certainty, I'm drawing up doubt.
3. Besides one of the most basic methodologies of Science (the Socratic Method) which is still taught in Physics and Biology classes alike, or at least it was taught in my Physics and Bio 101 n 102, gets it's name because it was the method by which a Philosopher, Socrates, conducted his thoughts. Thousands of years later, we still haven't found a better method of inquiry and analysis? Meaning that those "old world" philosophers were conducting experimentation in the very same methods as we use today.
With every generation, things become more clear. They have rarely changed lately even though tech and science knowledge has grown exponentially. Back then to now things changed because now we actually test our hypothesis. An Atom is still an atom is still one of the elements is still really small, nothing has changed, but we ADDED to our knowledge and CLARIFIED, NOT CHANGED, that there are smaller things. SO how is that funny? Please link the peer reviewed article where a scientist claims that atoms are the smallest things and that is final, absolute, and 100% certain.
2. I understand it smart one, and I'm telling you those philosophical opinions don't invalidate or even truly apply to today's science. Especially when there are differing opinions. How can you pass judgment on something without even having a solid validated background in your argument? Isn't that what you're trying to say? Yet, you are doing that say thing bringing up unverified philosophical opinions.
Seriously, go jerk off to the matrix with all that mumbo jumbo brick talk. I've also discussed that same exact example with my modern phil class.
WHEN DO I PREACH CERTAINTY? PLEASE LINK IT. GD. And you are not bringing ANY doubt. You are asking questions that although interesting, don't invalidate any of my or many others' scientific findings.
3. Umm... no. First off the scientific methodology used today was taken mostly from the workings of Galileo. Back then although similar, being it's origination, is very different then today. Again, I ask you to not just spew out BS but post some information on how these philosophers tested their hypotheses. How did they test the world was flat? They didn't and couldn't. Today we can, but we know our limits. So we only make theories based on tested information. I don't know what *** backwards school you went to, but I was not taught the Socratic method of just basically critiquing others opinions and "discovering science facts" using only verbal discussion. We have these places called laboratories where I studied at. Also, our scientific inquiry (different than methodology) is based off Aristotle's work and other individuals depending on the style of inquiry you are using, not Socrates'.
So you took physics 101 and bio 101 and 102 and you think you're an expert? You have the right to judge and discredit the scientific method and inquiry used today for all of our discoveries that have benefited you tremendously?
AGAIN:
QFEOriginally Posted by sillyputty
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?Originally Posted by sillyputty
I don't think you're getting it...
science says we can know things to an EXTENT...but what we know we can prove with evidence more so than other competing claims.
Thats what evidence does. Of all of the conclusions extrapolated from data, it supports the claims that push the evidence the farthest and most plausible direction.
Thats it.
If science was absolute then it would not allow us to understand that atoms weren't the smallest parts of the universe when new evidence was introduced.
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable?
Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.
Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther.
Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong.
AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...
THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
The point is...
HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?
Atheist with science background... checking in...
Will be watching.
For the Sake of Argument, Newton and Einstiens theories clash. And you didn't even qoute the next sentence, which statesOriginally Posted by PleasurePhD
QFEOriginally Posted by sillyputty
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable?
Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.
Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther.
Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong.
AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...
THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
The point is...
HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?
It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.Originally Posted by B Smooth 202
Atheist with science background... checking in...
Will be watching.
Sigh, I'm done with you. I was asking for examples of their experiments used to decipher that the earth was flat, since this would be the only way that we could equate their scientific methodology used to ours that we use. If they DID NOT test then they are NOT using the same methodology. Thinking is not conducting an experiment or running a test of the physical world.Originally Posted by bboy1827
You seem more argumentative than "smart"/ "informed". To say the Ancients didn't have "Tech" is to not understand "Tech." To say that the "Socratic Method" isn't the base method for science and philosophy the like is a fallacy. Galileo used the Socratic Method -_- google it/read a book. And to not understand that All Doctors/Scientits are "philosophers" since "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" and PhD, which is at the end of your Screename stands for "Doctoris Philosophea" or "Doctor of Philosophy" is a lack of knowledge.
You seem like the kid that talks %%+ on fox, but has only seen clips of Fox on MSNBC because MSNBC is always right. Not very smart, nor very Scientific.
Science never set out to prove god exists dude!Originally Posted by bboy1827
As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.Originally Posted by sillyputty
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.Originally Posted by bboy1827
Don't think you get it, Science is based on Observations, observations can be wrong. So whats the real argument? Your argument doesn't prove the infallibility of science, in fact it personifies its fallibility. IDK what we are arguing, you seem to be saying science will always change, I'm saying because it always changes it's not reliable...Am I wrong?
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable?
Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.
Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther.
Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong.
AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...
THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
The point is...
HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?
And it doesn't have anything to support the notion of God...I was quoted in this thread when I made a sidenote suggestion that the Science knots in this thread should read some Philosophical arguments that draw into the question the certainty of science. I further suggested that the Religion of Science may be just as wrong/right as the religion of Christianity...I used "religion" for a reason.
But on that note, Most Ancient Philosophers/Scientist were searching for the proof of God.
Question...how does Newtonian Physics even comment on Einstienen Physics, as Einstiens theory of relativity, as I udnerstood it and as the name "theory of "relativity" suggests (Yes, I've read a couple papers on it and don't fully understand it, so this is a serious non "trolling" questions) is a complex theory of subjectivity (which is an ancient philosophical notion)? And in fact as a quick, non-comprehensive, Google search shows it seems Einstiens theory broke Newtons theory. Where Newton thought Space as Static and that time was an even flow; Einstein thought neither space nor time were static but rather changing relative to whoever perceived them....don't reply in this thread, a DM would be sufficient.
It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.Originally Posted by B Smooth 202
Atheist with science background... checking in...
Will be watching.
DON'T EFFIN COME IN HERE AND QUOTE KANT AND THINK YOU'RE DROPPING KNOWLEDGE, YOU MORON. I ALREADY POSTED INFORMATION ON HIS WRITING EARLIER ON IN THIS THREAD. AND, YOU LEARN THAT INFO IN LIKE THE FIRST PHIL CLASS YOU HAVE TO TAKE. IT'S LIKE SAYING I TOOK BIO 101, 102, AND PHYSICS SO I'M AN EXPERT.Originally Posted by bboy1827
For the Sake of Argument, Newton and Einstiens theories clash. And you didn't even qoute the next sentence, which statesOriginally Posted by PleasurePhD
QFEOriginally Posted by sillyputty
I don't don't think i've ever asserted that science is infallible.
If science changes to BETTER understandings how is that unreliable?
Granted it may have been wrong to an extent but it is reliable up that extent as well.
Its the diff between newtonian and einsteinian physics. Newton didn't describe what happens at the atomic level as it relates to relativity...newton was right and therefore reliable...UP TO A CERTAIN POINT... einstein just went farther.
Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong.
AGAIN YOU'VE GOTTEN US OFF TOPIC...
THE FALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND THE EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS.
The point is...
HOW DOES ANYTHING YOU'VE SUGGESTED SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A GOD EXISTS?
"Its not COMPLETELY reliable as no model can ever represent that which its modeling...but to say that its just NOT reliable is wrong. "
To me, we can use science to cope with the "world", but there can never be meta-physical certainty, which is the standard Philosophers like to use.
The Cogito "I think, therefore I am" is the only "reliable" assertion ever made. If you are thinking, you are at least a "thinking-thing" Read a little philosophy, then come back at me. Until then I'm out.
Cogito, Transcendental Idealism, Pessimistic Meta-Induction of Science...Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Don't be "right" because in your "rightness" you'll never see you as being wrong. Believe what someone else tells you and end up like Quayle. Be a Scientist, a Lover of Knowledge. Otherwise, you will never know anything beyond what you know now.
Do you even know what google is???Originally Posted by sillyputty
It's one thing not to believe, it's another to act like your 'scientific background' makes your opinion any more legitimate than anybody else's.Originally Posted by B Smooth 202
Atheist with science background... checking in...
Will be watching.
thats why different scientists believe different things and suggest different theories...if you surveyed the scientific community what % would be atheist?
got +$%$$% in here rallying around Atheism posting pics of beer and #!$@
carry on..
It has nothing to do with being fallible. Science doesn't address the topic of god because god is within the realm of the supernatural. Science addresses natural phenomena.Originally Posted by bboy1827
As it is fallible, Science doesn't prove God exists, but also doesn't disprove God.