Last edited:
Christianity and Creationism - some clarification
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
You are misrepresenting the facts to suit your own irrational prejudices. It was established long before that. What is especially amusing about your citation though, is how you can't even follow the basics...
Your position in this thread is based on faith, not logic.
No Dolph is correct you are wrong. You can not seem to tell the difference between the origins of the scientific method and Cartesianism. I suppose you love Comte and think scientific study is all about logical positivism. Ever hurt yourself bhavv - can you use logical positivism to explain that pain?
Experimental scientific methods existed long before that, but what we call the 'Scientific Method' today was invented in the 17th century.
The ability to feel pain is a positive survival mechanism. The sensation of pain triggers the sympathetic nervous system to react and withdraw the body from the source of the pain, and also motivates us to seek relief and / or remedy for the source of any lasting pain.
If we couldnt feel pain, our chances of survival would be vastly diminished.
'maybe' is not an absolute definition. The scientific method as we know it today was not created until the 17th century.
Last edited:
Is this where we get into the 'never argue with a fundamentalist, because you can't reason someone out of an unreasonable position' discussion?
All Descartes really did was republish most of what was already out there, with a little sprinkling of his own a priori assumptions that make sense for predictive science work while rendering mechanisms as instrumental only.
Given that you appear to take science as real rather than instrumental, Descartes' position doesn't work for your expressions of belief in science as providing a means of explaining the world, rather than predicting it.
All Descartes really did was republish most of what was already out there, with a little sprinkling of his own a priori assumptions that make sense for predictive science work while rendering mechanisms as instrumental only.
Given that you appear to take science as real rather than instrumental, Descartes' position doesn't work for your expressions of belief in science as providing a means of explaining the world, rather than predicting it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 3,317
- Location
- Cognac, France
When you get to the nuts & bolts of creationism and evolution (don't forget even Darwin said if you can't find the missing link then my theory is wrong!) neither work.
Intervention theory is where it's at - at the moment we're only one step above the 'earth is flat' theory in our understanding of life and the universe!
Intervention theory is where it's at - at the moment we're only one step above the 'earth is flat' theory in our understanding of life and the universe!
Now try again, using logical positivism as requested. The above is supposition, not positivism, and fails the positivism requirement for verificationism.
You do realise you're now resorting to 'the bible says' arguments, right?
Which was in turn simply an evolution of work that had gone before it and is easily identifiable as an evolution, not a new creation.
I dont waste my time with philosophical arguments.
No, I am resorting to understanding simple proven facts and definitions.
Then how can you hold a belief in scientific realism, which is a philosophical stance requiring additional faith compared to a instrumentalism, and as such could be considered akin to believing in God?
So the scientific method does not do anything to shape the world around us or our understanding. Thank you - we have gone back to my original assertion.
Oh and:
Last edited:
Dolph is correct, you are refering to the scientific method as codified in the 17th Century. It was not created in the 17th Century and has been in use in one form or another since before Aristotle formulated Deductive Reasoning.
The Scientific Method was not something created at any specific time, it is a methodology that has evolved over several millennia and is still evolving to this day.
Alexander Pope. An Essay on Criticism
It is also making the mistake of thinking that is the absolute version hence my point on taking it to the extremes as Comte did and the failure that then provides to enable us to determine quite meaningful things about our universe and our experience of it.
This is the 'Scientific Method', and my research indicates that it was created in the 17th century:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
Any other method is long obsolete, and no longer a valid form of scientific experimentation.
You cannot pass your dissertation and any other practical work on any science degree today unless you use that method.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
Any other method is long obsolete, and no longer a valid form of scientific experimentation.
You cannot pass your dissertation and any other practical work on any science degree today unless you use that method.
Last edited:
You're in a thread about religion, and trying to use science as a counter to religion. That's philosophy through and through. Now, just because you haven't thought through the nature of your position (probably instead repeating it verbatim from either a parent or some priest-like figure to your irrationality such as Dawkins) doesn't change the fact that you are in a philosophical discussion, making philosophical statements, and hence any critique of your position is going to involve philosophy.
While we're quoting, I much prefer this one:
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941
That's a pretty diagram what a priori assumptions must one make to accept it.