'Science cannot provide all the answers'


 Religions > Atheism > 'Science cannot provide all the answers'

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 24 of 30

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 

29
 

30
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "maff"
Date: 04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM
Object: 'Science cannot provide all the answers'
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.

User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 13 Nov 2003 10:26:19 AM
"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g4dwkr.zpkwg418x3touN%wilkins@wehi.edu.au...

.0311041646.130f3aaa@posting.google.com>

<srZpb.109787$Tr4.300290@attbi_s03>
<v11hqv0eic02s6nicl8ivv0efgq4msvmjo@4ax.com>
<gW7qb.111913$Fm2.100087@attbi_s04>
<7o3iqvcalf7u0dp6j79dun2hpnask6e1d4@4ax.com>
<NJaqb.113424$Tr4.316824@attbi_s03>
<nmjiqv0i889mai20n018l9cnobo204sbp2@4ax.com>
<1g4d47f.tvaq6w5qv66sN%wilkins@wehi.edu.au>
<_KFsb.138809$9E1.705061@attbi_s52>

Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1068724884 128.250.252.193 (13 Nov 2003

23:01:24 +1000)

X-Original-Trace: 13 Nov 2003 23:01:24 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 42

Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote :


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g4ctmh.a4vl13txdu6tN%wilkins@wehi.edu.au...


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"J Yossarian" <jyossarian@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:11f973b3.0311111435.73ee9c6c@posting.google.com...


... non-sequitir ...


Its non sequitur, knucklehead. Please feel free to contact me

again

if

and

when you learn something about logic.


That does not follow from a spelling mistake...


Pointing out that it is spelled "non sequitur" does not follow from

J

Yo

misspellerating it "non-sequirir"??? How do you figure that?


Pointing out that a spelling error is not itself evidence of a failure
to understand logic...


Did I say it was? All I did was correct his spelling and then invite him

to

get in touch with me again if and when he ever learns something about

logic.


This item he called "non-sequitir" [sic], do you agree that it is? Why?


There must be a line filter for subtlety at my ISP dialup point...

You can't answer the question, "This item he called "non-sequitir" [sic], do
you agree that it is? Why?"
so you try to create a diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.

User: "catshark"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 13 Nov 2003 06:50:45 AM
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:01:42 +0000 (UTC),
(John
Wilkins) wrote:

.0311041646.130f3aaa@posting.google.com> <srZpb.109787$Tr4.300290@attbi_s03> <v11hqv0eic02s6nicl8ivv0efgq4msvmjo@4ax.com> <gW7qb.111913$Fm2.100087@attbi_s04> <7o3iqvcalf7u0dp6j79dun2hpnask6e1d4@4ax.com> <NJaqb.113424$Tr4.316824@attbi_s03> <nmjiqv0i889mai20n018l9cnobo204sbp2@4ax.com> <1g4d47f.tvaq6w5qv66sN%

> <_KFsb.138809$9E1.705061@attbi_s52>
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1068724884 128.250.252.193 (13 Nov 2003 23:01:24 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 13 Nov 2003 23:01:24 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 42

Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote :


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote in message
news:1g4ctmh.a4vl13txdu6tN%
...


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"J Yossarian" <jyossarian@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:11f973b3.0311111435.73ee9c6c@posting.google.com...


... non-sequitir ...


Its non sequitur, knucklehead. Please feel free to contact me again

if

and

when you learn something about logic.


That does not follow from a spelling mistake...


Pointing out that it is spelled "non sequitur" does not follow from J

Yo

misspellerating it "non-sequirir"??? How do you figure that?


Pointing out that a spelling error is not itself evidence of a failure
to understand logic...


Did I say it was? All I did was correct his spelling and then invite him to
get in touch with me again if and when he ever learns something about logic.

This item he called "non-sequitir" [sic], do you agree that it is? Why?


There must be a line filter for subtlety at my ISP dialup point...

Hmm. Maybe they've been installed at all access points to the U.S. . . .
Part of the Patriot Act perhaps . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 13 Nov 2003 10:26:20 AM
"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pav6rvsb348k3nabbka8u3dra59396mv55@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:01:42 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

.0311041646.130f3aaa@posting.google.com>

<srZpb.109787$Tr4.300290@attbi_s03>
<v11hqv0eic02s6nicl8ivv0efgq4msvmjo@4ax.com>
<gW7qb.111913$Fm2.100087@attbi_s04>
<7o3iqvcalf7u0dp6j79dun2hpnask6e1d4@4ax.com>
<NJaqb.113424$Tr4.316824@attbi_s03>
<nmjiqv0i889mai20n018l9cnobo204sbp2@4ax.com>
<1g4d47f.tvaq6w5qv66sN%
>
<_KFsb.138809$9E1.705061@attbi_s52>

Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1068724884 128.250.252.193 (13 Nov 2003

23:01:24 +1000)

X-Original-Trace: 13 Nov 2003 23:01:24 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 42

Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote :


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote in message
news:1g4ctmh.a4vl13txdu6tN%
...


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"J Yossarian" <jyossarian@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:11f973b3.0311111435.73ee9c6c@posting.google.com...


... non-sequitir ...


Its non sequitur, knucklehead. Please feel free to contact me

again

if

and

when you learn something about logic.


That does not follow from a spelling mistake...


Pointing out that it is spelled "non sequitur" does not follow

from J

Yo

misspellerating it "non-sequirir"??? How do you figure that?


Pointing out that a spelling error is not itself evidence of a

failure

to understand logic...


Did I say it was? All I did was correct his spelling and then invite

him to

get in touch with me again if and when he ever learns something about

logic.


This item he called "non-sequitir" [sic], do you agree that it is? Why?


There must be a line filter for subtlety at my ISP dialup point...


Hmm. Maybe they've been installed at all access points to the U.S. . . .
Part of the Patriot Act perhaps . . .

So neither of you can answer the question, so you just create a diversion?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
User: "catshark"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 13 Nov 2003 07:39:57 PM
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:26:20 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:


"catshark" <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pav6rvsb348k3nabbka8u3dra59396mv55@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:01:42 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

.0311041646.130f3aaa@posting.google.com>

<srZpb.109787$Tr4.300290@attbi_s03>
<v11hqv0eic02s6nicl8ivv0efgq4msvmjo@4ax.com>
<gW7qb.111913$Fm2.100087@attbi_s04>
<7o3iqvcalf7u0dp6j79dun2hpnask6e1d4@4ax.com>
<NJaqb.113424$Tr4.316824@attbi_s03>
<nmjiqv0i889mai20n018l9cnobo204sbp2@4ax.com>
<1g4d47f.tvaq6w5qv66sN%

>
<_KFsb.138809$9E1.705061@attbi_s52>

Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1068724884 128.250.252.193 (13 Nov 2003

23:01:24 +1000)

X-Original-Trace: 13 Nov 2003 23:01:24 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 42

Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote :


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"John Wilkins" <

> wrote in message
news:1g4ctmh.a4vl13txdu6tN%
...


Bob White <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:

"J Yossarian" <jyossarian@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:11f973b3.0311111435.73ee9c6c@posting.google.com...


... non-sequitir ...


Its non sequitur, knucklehead. Please feel free to contact me

again

if

and

when you learn something about logic.


That does not follow from a spelling mistake...


Pointing out that it is spelled "non sequitur" does not follow

from J

Yo

misspellerating it "non-sequirir"??? How do you figure that?


Pointing out that a spelling error is not itself evidence of a

failure

to understand logic...


Did I say it was? All I did was correct his spelling and then invite

him to

get in touch with me again if and when he ever learns something about

logic.


This item he called "non-sequitir" [sic], do you agree that it is? Why?


There must be a line filter for subtlety at my ISP dialup point...


Hmm. Maybe they've been installed at all access points to the U.S. . . .
Part of the Patriot Act perhaps . . .


So neither of you can answer the question, so you just create a diversion?

Wow! They must have turned the damn things on "high".


"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp

In the law, the above reference suffers from what is known as "a fact not
in evidence".

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake those, you've got it made.
- Groucho Marx -
.



User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 10:52:20 AM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pbQpb.103256$HS4.867238@attbi_s01>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3dgfqvg6br1nfkgivn6urbv43pka4g25p8@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<WMOpb.102680$HS4.863737@attbi_s01>:


"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040500.15ae482b@posting.google.com...


...
The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it
was carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere. . . . .
...


False dichotomy.

You don't get to determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs).


I don't see how it can be any other way. Most people choose to conform
their behavior to that demanded by the law ...


But 'choosing' is simply the behavior of going one way down the maze or
another. It's all still observable behavior. The question is what determines
human behavior, even the behavior of choosing one course over another; Do
you only have the choice of either taking the law into your own hands, based
on your personal subjective convictions (beliefs), or obey the laws carved
in stone by a god, as Lenny puts his false dichotomy?

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone. Law is not
developed from an objective understanding of the universe or from
science. At best it is derived from an imperfect understanding of human
behavior.

No, that is a false dichotomy. Clue: There are no gods, and you don't get to
determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs). For example, you cannot just decide, based
on your own personal subjective conviction that you neighbor deserves to
have his life, liberty, or property taken away from him, then go ahead on
your own subjective conviction he is guilty and hang him from a tree in the
back yard.

Why repeat this instead of responding to my comments about it? Allow me
to remind you what I wrote:
"But you can. People kill other people all the time, often telling
themselves or others around them that the victim deserved it. You seem
to be confusing what people can do with what people are allowed to do by
law."

You have to produce logically satisfactory objective evidence that he
deserves to have the book thrown at him for behavior constituting a crime.

"Only if you want to use the state's machinery of punishment."

Due process of law is required.

"Yes, though due process is not science, it is a special legal"
mechanism.

A scientific investigation has to be done,
and it must be done by crime scene investigators trained in the scientific
method of investigation.

"A criminal investigation is done. It uses some science, it also uses
other, less scientific, tools."

I see that reading seems not to be one of your
strong points, so why don't you just watch CSI (Crime Scene Investigators)on
TV. They'll show you how it is done, using the scientific method. (Clue:
It's all about what the evidence says.)

"Please tell that to the people who have been convicted based on false
or erroneous claims of eyewitnesses."
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 03:23:49 PM
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pbQpb.103256$HS4.867238@attbi_s01>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3dgfqvg6br1nfkgivn6urbv43pka4g25p8@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<WMOpb.102680$HS4.863737@attbi_s01>:


"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040500.15ae482b@posting.google.com...


...
The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it
was carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere. . . . .
...


False dichotomy.

You don't get to determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs).


I don't see how it can be any other way. Most people choose to conform
their behavior to that demanded by the law ...


But 'choosing' is simply the behavior of going one way down the maze or
another. It's all still observable behavior. The question is what

determines

human behavior, even the behavior of choosing one course over another; Do
you only have the choice of either taking the law into your own hands,

based

on your personal subjective convictions (beliefs), or obey the laws

carved

in stone by a god, as Lenny puts his false dichotomy?


I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. ...

Try reading his false dichotomy again:
"The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it was
carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere." -- Flank
See it now?
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 04:11:28 PM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<GOUpb.108048$e01.370937@attbi_s02>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pbQpb.103256$HS4.867238@attbi_s01>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3dgfqvg6br1nfkgivn6urbv43pka4g25p8@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<WMOpb.102680$HS4.863737@attbi_s01>:


"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040500.15ae482b@posting.google.com...


...
The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it
was carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere. . . . .
...


False dichotomy.

You don't get to determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs).


I don't see how it can be any other way. Most people choose to conform
their behavior to that demanded by the law ...


But 'choosing' is simply the behavior of going one way down the maze or
another. It's all still observable behavior. The question is what determines
human behavior, even the behavior of choosing one course over another; Do
you only have the choice of either taking the law into your own hands, based
on your personal subjective convictions (beliefs), or obey the laws carved
in stone by a god, as Lenny puts his false dichotomy?


I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. ...


Try reading his false dichotomy again:

"The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it was
carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere." -- Flank

See it now?

I've read it. I don't read it as a dichotomy (false or true) at all.
Remember, he left trailing dots at the end of this comment.
Even if I accept your dichotomy interpretation, it has nothing to do
with the other comments or your unwillingness to address them.
.


User: "Lenny Flank"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 06:54:38 PM
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pbQpb.103256$HS4.867238@attbi_s01>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:3dgfqvg6br1nfkgivn6urbv43pka4g25p8@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<WMOpb.102680$HS4.863737@attbi_s01>:


"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040500.15ae482b@posting.google.com...


...
The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it
was carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere. . . . .
...


False dichotomy.

You don't get to determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs).


I don't see how it can be any other way. Most people choose to conform
their behavior to that demanded by the law ...


But 'choosing' is simply the behavior of going one way down the maze or
another. It's all still observable behavior. The question is what determines
human behavior, even the behavior of choosing one course over another; Do
you only have the choice of either taking the law into your own hands, based
on your personal subjective convictions (beliefs), or obey the laws carved
in stone by a god, as Lenny puts his false dichotomy?


I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.

Exactly. It appears to me as if our friend here seems to have me
painted as a "theist" (and a "fundie" to boot, I suspect), and has
therefore attributed a whole slew of opinions to me that I don't in
fact hold.
He is in for quite a shock, I think.
Law is not

developed from an objective understanding of the universe or from
science. At best it is derived from an imperfect understanding of human
behavior.

Law is subjective, utterly and totally. What is legal or illegal
depends entirely on who we are talking about, when and where. Law
changes as people change.
Indeed, I would submit that this is true of "Right" or "Wrong" in
general --- they are entirely subjective and change according to
circumstances. But I think that would carry us off into the swamp of
tangentiality.

No, that is a false dichotomy. Clue: There are no gods, and you don't get to
determine your own behavior through your personal
subjective convictions (beliefs). For example, you cannot just decide, based
on your own personal subjective conviction that you neighbor deserves to
have his life, liberty, or property taken away from him, then go ahead on
your own subjective conviction he is guilty and hang him from a tree in the
back yard.


Why repeat this instead of responding to my comments about it? Allow me
to remind you what I wrote:

"But you can. People kill other people all the time, often telling
themselves or others around them that the victim deserved it. You seem
to be confusing what people can do with what people are allowed to do by
law."

Right. He also seems to think that "The Law" is some sort of
objective arbiter of what is Right or Wrong. It ain't. The law is
what we make it. Nothing more, nothing less. And we can make it any
damn thing we like. After all, Hitler's massacre of Jews, union
organizers, gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses was entirely completely
absolutely one-thousand percent "legal" under German law. Conversely,
everything that the Solidarity movement did to fight the Commies in
Poland was completely totally absolutely one-thousand percent
"illegal" under Polish law.
"Law" and "Right/Wrong" seldom have much to do with each other. And
they have nothing at all to do with the scientific method.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 08:50:16 PM
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.


Exactly. ...

Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)
Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means? If so, then please give me a brief demonstration that you do by
showing how it can be used to establish legal principles (standards of
behavior), say the principle that it is wrong to deprive a person of life
without due process of law (murder).
Waiting.
.
User: "Lenny Flank"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 05:30:40 AM
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vAZpb.109218$Fm2.95049@attbi_s04>...

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.



Exactly. ...


Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)

No. I cannot use the scientific method to establish ANY matter of
subjective opinion or judgement. Not "is murder wrong". Not "does god
exist". Not "is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla".
That was indeed my entire point.


Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means? If so, then please give me a brief demonstration that you do by
showing how it can be used to establish legal principles (standards of
behavior), say the principle that it is wrong to deprive a person of life
without due process of law (murder).

Waiting.

Waiting for what. My subjective opinion? What good does THAT do
anybody?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 11:29:46 AM
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311050332.337c2573@posting.google.com...

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad

absurdum

means? If so, then please give me a brief demonstration that you do by
showing how it can be used to establish legal principles (standards of
behavior), say the principle that it is wrong to deprive a person of

life

without due process of law (murder).

Waiting.




Waiting for what. My subjective opinion?

No, I am waiting for some indication from you that you understand some basic
principles, such as the principle that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly
legitimate tool for considering propositions in the field known as "ethics."
http://tinylink.com/?JI8nT9vAbm

What good does THAT do
anybody?

So you really do not understand what the term, 'reductio ad absurdum' means?
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics, old boy? You might try looking it up
and reading about it, if that wouldn't be asking too much?
Hint: Wouldn't you agree that we mere mortals considered as a group (with
the exception of a few psychopaths, of course) would consider it an absurd
situation among us mere mortals if depriving a person of life without due
process of law (murder) were considered perfectly acceptable behavior?
.


User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 11:24:14 PM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<vAZpb.109218$Fm2.95049@attbi_s04>:


"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.

Exactly. ...


Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)

I suppose that might be the case sometime in the future when scientists
are investigating human behavior. Right now science is not sufficiently
advanced to do this in a useful manner, so they allow social scientists
to do an approximation of the scientific method that is constrained by
the idea that humans should not be used the way many governments are
willing to use humans.

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means?

What you have done in trying to defend your arguments?

If so, then please give me a brief demonstration that you do by
showing how it can be used to establish legal principles (standards of
behavior), say the principle that it is wrong to deprive a person of life
without due process of law (murder).

Reductio ad absurdum cannot be used to establish legal principles.
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 08:35:48 AM
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5u1hqvcdoob92kemdkqv3rqhukmcrdms40@4ax.com...

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means?


What you have done in trying to defend your arguments?

Oh, what a clever answer! You cut me to the quick! Now, do you want to give
us an honest answer this time, or are you not interested in honest
discussion?
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 09:11:41 AM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<fW7qb.111912$Fm2.100168@attbi_s04>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5u1hqvcdoob92kemdkqv3rqhukmcrdms40@4ax.com...

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means?


What you have done in trying to defend your arguments?


Oh, what a clever answer! You cut me to the quick! Now, do you want to give
us an honest answer this time, or are you not interested in honest
discussion?

I am interested in honest discussion, but you seem unwilling to actually
respond to those comments that I have made about your assertions. It
appears that you have abandoned the field because you know that you
cannot show that morality is objectively arrived at.
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 12:06:05 PM
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:uo4iqvs864b49og5197kg06p3tfdjqncjs@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<fW7qb.111912$Fm2.100168@attbi_s04>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5u1hqvcdoob92kemdkqv3rqhukmcrdms40@4ax.com...

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad

absurdum

means?


What you have done in trying to defend your arguments?


Oh, what a clever answer! You cut me to the quick! Now, do you want to

give

us an honest answer this time, or are you not interested in honest
discussion?


I am interested in honest discussion, but you seem unwilling to actually
respond to those comments that I have made about your assertions. It
appears that you have abandoned the field because you know that you
cannot show that morality is objectively arrived at.

Now hold on just a moment, here, sir.
Let's get one thing straight right away. The ones making the "assertion" in
question here are you and Lenny Flank (Viv seems to have also made herself a
party to it now also), as you put it [paraphrasing], "Ethics are based on
subjective opinion."
What I have done is try to point out holes in your argument making it unable
to hold water, yes?
Here is how I responded to Viv:
Viv wrote:

Where did Lenny say "personal" subjective opinion?

He said that the law is derived from subjective opinion. That means the same
thing as personal subjective conviction (synonyms: belief, faith).

A consensus opinion is
still a subjective opinion.

Your term, 'opinion' begs the question, Viv. Know what I mean? The term,
'opinion' relates directly to the subjective, as opposed to the objective.
It assumes your desired conclusion, that the law prohibiting murder is
derived from the subjective as opposed to the objective. Assuming one's
conclusion as a premise in one's argument was a big no no, logic wise, where
I went to school.
Here is the situation:
We have two terms that are antonyms in this case, 'objective' and
'subjective'.
In my view (and I am sure you will agree, after you think about it a bit)
the term, 'objective' (as in 'objective evidence') means of, relating to, or
being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all
observers.
Note particularly, "independent of individual thought."
'Subjective' is the antonym of 'objective'.
< brief pause for a little thinking >
Now you agree that we mortals as a group have consensus on this point, yes?
So, basically, and for the reason stated, I don't accept your premise that
"Murder is not acceptable behavior" is a matter of 'opinion', as you put it.
It seems to be more in the nature of a basic principle, which is independent
of individual thought, because the opposite would be an absurd situation
among us mortals. See what I mean?
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 01:43:26 PM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<y%aqb.112919$Fm2.101273@attbi_s04>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:uo4iqvs864b49og5197kg06p3tfdjqncjs@4ax.com...

In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<fW7qb.111912$Fm2.100168@attbi_s04>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5u1hqvcdoob92kemdkqv3rqhukmcrdms40@4ax.com...

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad

absurdum

means?


What you have done in trying to defend your arguments?


Oh, what a clever answer! You cut me to the quick! Now, do you want to

give

us an honest answer this time, or are you not interested in honest
discussion?


I am interested in honest discussion, but you seem unwilling to actually
respond to those comments that I have made about your assertions. It
appears that you have abandoned the field because you know that you
cannot show that morality is objectively arrived at.


Now hold on just a moment, here, sir.

Let's get one thing straight right away. The ones making the "assertion" in
question here are you and Lenny Flank (Viv seems to have also made herself a
party to it now also), as you put it [paraphrasing], "Ethics are based on
subjective opinion."

Burden of proof doesn't shift just because you want it to. Certain areas
of discussion by their nature have the burden put on them. It's not my
job to prove that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's not my job to
prove that creation did not happen last Thursday. In this case, the
_inherent_ affirmative is that "ethics are a result of objective
analysis". You've offered nothing to support this claim. If the claim
fails, the alternative is that they are not objective. Subjectivity, as
you were arguing, is essentially everything that is not objective.

What I have done is try to point out holes in your argument making it unable
to hold water, yes?

No, you haven't. Not that I accept your claim that it is legitimate, but
the fact that ethics are not universally consistent undermines the
assertion that they are based on objective criteria.

Here is how I responded to Viv:

Viv wrote:

Where did Lenny say "personal" subjective opinion?


He said that the law is derived from subjective opinion. That means the same
thing as personal subjective conviction (synonyms: belief, faith).

A consensus opinion is
still a subjective opinion.


Your term, 'opinion' begs the question, Viv. Know what I mean? The term,
'opinion' relates directly to the subjective, as opposed to the objective.
It assumes your desired conclusion, that the law prohibiting murder is
derived from the subjective as opposed to the objective. Assuming one's
conclusion as a premise in one's argument was a big no no, logic wise, where
I went to school.

Here is the situation:
We have two terms that are antonyms in this case, 'objective' and
'subjective'.

In my view (and I am sure you will agree, after you think about it a bit)
the term, 'objective' (as in 'objective evidence') means of, relating to, or
being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all
observers.

Note particularly, "independent of individual thought."

'Subjective' is the antonym of 'objective'.

< brief pause for a little thinking >

Now you agree that we mortals as a group have consensus on this point, yes?

So, basically, and for the reason stated, I don't accept your premise that
"Murder is not acceptable behavior" is a matter of 'opinion', as you put it.
It seems to be more in the nature of a basic principle, which is independent
of individual thought, because the opposite would be an absurd situation
among us mortals. See what I mean?

.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 03:00:59 PM
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s5kiqv84c9g4s1ge8cq09dr3fqger690qd@4ax.com...

... I am interested in honest discussion ...

... Burden of proof doesn't shift just because you want it to. ...

I thought you said you were interested in honest discussion? Were you just
lying when you said that?
The issue here is the proposition you and your group brought into this
thread of discussion, [paraphrasing], "Ethics are based on subjective
opinion."
Are we clear on this? If not, then this is goodbye, sir. I won't waste time
in a discussion with someone who will not honestly stipulate who's on first
and what the issue actually is.
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 06:35:43 PM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Azdqb.115299$e01.419117@attbi_s02>:


"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s5kiqv84c9g4s1ge8cq09dr3fqger690qd@4ax.com...


... I am interested in honest discussion ...


... Burden of proof doesn't shift just because you want it to. ...


I thought you said you were interested in honest discussion? Were you just
lying when you said that?

The issue here is the proposition you and your group brought into this
thread of discussion, [paraphrasing], "Ethics are based on subjective
opinion."

I was under the impression that this comment came as a contrary
proposition to the idea that ethics were objectively reached, but it
doesn't matter how it came about. The burden of proof does not fall on
the first person to make a claim.

Are we clear on this? If not, then this is goodbye, sir. I won't waste time
in a discussion with someone who will not honestly stipulate who's on first
and what the issue actually is.

Claims for the objective always have a burden of proof. If you are not
claiming that ethics can be objectively arrived at, then what are you
arguing _for_? I can see what you are arguing against.
.







User: "Viv"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 04:01:10 AM
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.


Exactly. ...


Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)

Where did Lenny say "personal" subjective opinion? A consensus opinion is
still a subjective opinion. If not, why not? If "the law" were scientific,
surely either every country would have the death penalty or no countries
would have it? So, simple data collection provides evidence that supports
the hypothesis of the subjectivity of the law - QED.
As many others who have responded to Lenny have done, you are confusing
reason and logic with the scientific method. People have strong emotional
preferences regarding "law and order" therefore they spend much time
reasoning and engaging in logical discourse about how law and order should
be systematised in their particular society. This is based on an emotional
desire for personal safety and distaste for social disruption, and is thus
subjective at the same time as it is reasoned and logical. But reason and
logic, while *necessary for* science, are not *necessarily* science.

Let me ask you this: Do you understand what the term reductio ad absurdum
means? If so, then please give me a brief demonstration that you do by
showing how it can be used to establish legal principles (standards of
behavior), say the principle that it is wrong to deprive a person of life
without due process of law (murder).

Waiting.

Why are you asking Lenny to prove an ethic using legal principles when he is
challenging people to prove that ethic using scientific principles? His
only point throughout this debate has been that there are limits to how the
tool of science can be used when considering matters of
morals/ethics/tastes, which sociology, anthropology and history show us are
fluid social conditions.
He has never argued that people don't use reason and logic to make laws, he
is just arguing that they don't use science. After all, what
*scientifically* is "murder"? Every culture calls it "unjust killing", but
what exactly is "unjust"? There are many rational and logical arguments to
be made in favour of drawing the just/unjust line in various places, but
there is no way of validly applying the scientific method to such questions.
On another point entirely, you seem to be reacting to Lenny as if he is
attacking science in order to diminish it. Is it attacking a methodological
tool to point out that there are limitations to the way in which it can be
applied? Surely after all it is useful to point out to apprentice car
mechanics that a shifting spanner is going to be much more useful to them
than a vacuum cleaner. So why is it a problem to point out that the
scientific method simply is not the proper tool to evaluate
morals/ethics/tastes?
Anyway, it's very amusing for the regulars of talk.origins to see others
attacking one of our resident radical skeptics as if he's a religionist.
Tee-hee.
Vivienne Smythe
--
I've never understood why "do what the deity says -- he's got the
power to send you to hell!" is more of a moral statement than "do what
the robber says -- he's got a gun!" (Louann Miller)
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 10:56:25 AM
"Viv" <viv@diespamdie.viv.id.au> wrote in message
news:898hqvohv6t7ueuu599jrob40h89b92tvg@4ax.com...

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"

<threeball@hotmail.com>

wrote:

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.


Exactly. ...


Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)


Where did Lenny say "personal" subjective opinion?

He said that the law is derived from subjective opinion. That means the same
thing as personal subjective conviction (synonyms: belief, faith).

A consensus opinion is
still a subjective opinion.

Your term, 'opinion' begs the question, Viv. Know what I mean? The term,
'opinion' relates directly to the subjective, as opposed to the objective.
It assumes your desired conclusion, that the law prohibiting murder is
derived from the subjective as opposed to the objective. Assuming one's
conclusion as a premise in one's argument was a big no no, logic wise, where
I went to school.
Here is the situation:
We have two terms that are antonyms in this case, 'objective' and
'subjective'.
In my view (and I am sure you will agree, after you think about it a bit)
the term, 'objective' (as in 'objective evidence') means of, relating to, or
being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all
observers.
Note particularly, "independent of individual thought."
'Subjective' is the antonym of 'objective'.
< brief pause for a little thinking >
Now you agree that we mortals as a group have consensus on this point, yes?
So, basically, and for the reason stated, I don't accept your premise that
"Murder is not acceptable behavior" is a matter of 'opinion', as you put it.
It seems to be more in the nature of a basic principle, which is independent
of individual thought, because the opposite would be an absurd situation
among us mortals. See what I mean?
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 01:23:40 PM
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<SZ9qb.114225$e01.416162@attbi_s02>:


"Viv" <viv@diespamdie.viv.id.au> wrote in message
news:898hqvohv6t7ueuu599jrob40h89b92tvg@4ax.com...

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 02:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"

<threeball@hotmail.com>

wrote:

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041655.343af2f6@posting.google.com...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message

news:<m1mfqvgd22j6487uk3pa51bqsnc3nrln2a@4ax.com>...

I don't read what Lenny said that way at all. As I understood it, he
said that the law itself is derived from subjective opinion and was
dismissive of the idea that laws were carved in stone.


Exactly. ...


Then you can use the scientific method of investigation to establish that
the law is derived purely from personal subjective conviction? 8^)


Where did Lenny say "personal" subjective opinion?


He said that the law is derived from subjective opinion. That means the same
thing as personal subjective conviction (synonyms: belief, faith).

Are you stating that cultures do not have subjective opinions?

A consensus opinion is
still a subjective opinion.


Your term, 'opinion' begs the question, Viv. Know what I mean? The term,
'opinion' relates directly to the subjective, as opposed to the objective.
It assumes your desired conclusion, that the law prohibiting murder is
derived from the subjective as opposed to the objective. Assuming one's
conclusion as a premise in one's argument was a big no no, logic wise, where
I went to school.

Provide evidence that the law prohibiting murder is objectively arrived
at.

Here is the situation:
We have two terms that are antonyms in this case, 'objective' and
'subjective'.

In my view (and I am sure you will agree, after you think about it a bit)
the term, 'objective' (as in 'objective evidence') means of, relating to, or
being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible
experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all
observers.

Note particularly, "independent of individual thought."

'Subjective' is the antonym of 'objective'.

< brief pause for a little thinking >

Now you agree that we mortals as a group have consensus on this point, yes?


So, basically, and for the reason stated, I don't accept your premise that
"Murder is not acceptable behavior" is a matter of 'opinion', as you put it.

You didn't give any reasons. You were discussing the difference between
objective and subjective.

It seems to be more in the nature of a basic principle, which is independent
of individual thought, because the opposite would be an absurd situation
among us mortals. See what I mean?

Nope.
.


User: "Lenny Flank"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 05 Nov 2003 06:31:43 PM
Viv <viv@diespamdie.viv.id.au> wrote in message news:<898hqvohv6t7ueuu599jrob40h89b92tvg@4ax.com>...
<snip>

Why are you asking Lenny to prove an ethic using legal principles when he is
challenging people to prove that ethic using scientific principles? His
only point throughout this debate has been that there are limits to how the
tool of science can be used when considering matters of
morals/ethics/tastes, which sociology, anthropology and history show us are
fluid social conditions.

He has never argued that people don't use reason and logic to make laws, he
is just arguing that they don't use science. After all, what
*scientifically* is "murder"? Every culture calls it "unjust killing", but
what exactly is "unjust"? There are many rational and logical arguments to
be made in favour of drawing the just/unjust line in various places, but
there is no way of validly applying the scientific method to such questions.

Exactly. I could not have said it better myself.


On another point entirely, you seem to be reacting to Lenny as if he is
attacking science in order to diminish it.

Right. He is acting exactly like the fundies do when I challenge the
basis of THEIR opinions. Like the fundies, he makes one assertion
after another and expects everyone to just take his holy word for it.
Like the fundies, he wants science and religion to answer the same
questions. Like the fundies, he sees the world entirely in black and
white, for him or against him. Like the fundies, he assumes that the
slightest criticism of his faith is an all-out assault. And like the
fundies, he assumes that his opinions are so self-evidently infallible
that they simply do not need to be defended.
As I noted before, in most religious wars, both sides tend to sound
the same. <shrug>
Is it attacking a methodological

tool to point out that there are limitations to the way in which it can be
applied? Surely after all it is useful to point out to apprentice car
mechanics that a shifting spanner is going to be much more useful to them
than a vacuum cleaner. So why is it a problem to point out that the
scientific method simply is not the proper tool to evaluate
morals/ethics/tastes?

Anyway, it's very amusing for the regulars of talk.origins to see others
attacking one of our resident radical skeptics as if he's a religionist.
Tee-hee.

And I haven't even laid the Flanking Maneuver <tm> on them yet . . . .
<grin>
But anyone who DOES think that I am some sort of closet theist who is
attacking science, should visit my "Creation 'Science' Debunked"
website at:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
You will be VERY quickly relieved of that illusion, I assure you.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.





User: "Daniel T."

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 03 Nov 2003 08:44:54 AM
(Lenny Flank) wrote:

OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1) whether my
girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours,


"Cute" is a term in esthetics, not anything like "X exists" so this has
nothing to do with the scientific method of investigation.


My point exactly. After all, I am the one who stated "Science, of
course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of these
"hgihly subjective values".

Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.

Are you saying then that the existance of God is a "highly subjective
value"? Is that why His existance cannot be proven with the scientific
method?
.
User: "Lenny Flank"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 03 Nov 2003 09:14:46 PM
"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<postmaster-7EAA8A.09455403112003@news03.west.earthlink.net>...

lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:

OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1) whether my
girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours,


"Cute" is a term in esthetics, not anything like "X exists" so this has
nothing to do with the scientific method of investigation.


My point exactly. After all, I am the one who stated "Science, of
course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of these
"hgihly subjective values".

Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.


Are you saying then that the existance of God is a "highly subjective
value"? Is that why His existance cannot be proven with the scientific
method?

Yes.
Either one believes, or one doesn't. It doesn't GET any more
"subjective" than that. <shrug> Using "science" to argue over God
is a waste of time. You might as well be arguing over whether angels
have navels.
(And once again I will point out that I do not assert -- nor do I deny
-- the existence of any gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
any sort. I simply don't care one way or the other, and I simply
don't see how it makes a shred of difference either way.)
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 01:08:43 AM
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031915.46f575a2@posting.google.com...

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:<postmaster-7EAA8A.09455403112003@news03.west.earthlink.net>...

lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:

OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1)

whether my

girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours,


"Cute" is a term in esthetics, not anything like "X exists" so this

has

nothing to do with the scientific method of investigation.


My point exactly. After all, I am the one who stated "Science, of
course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of these
"hgihly subjective values".

Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.


Are you saying then that the existance of God is a "highly subjective
value"? Is that why His existance cannot be proven with the scientific
method?






Yes.

Either one believes, or one doesn't. It doesn't GET any more
"subjective" than that. <shrug> Using "science" to argue over God
is a waste of time. You might as well be arguing over whether angels
have navels.



(And once again I will point out that I do not assert -- nor do I deny
-- the existence of any gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
any sort. I simply don't care one way or the other, and I simply
don't see how it makes a shred of difference either way.)

Isn't it your argument that there might be a god 'cause scientists can't
prove that idea false?
.
User: "Lenny Flank"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 06:28:14 PM
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2hIpb.76989$ao4.218768@attbi_s51>...

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031915.46f575a2@posting.google.com...

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:<postmaster-7EAA8A.09455403112003@news03.west.earthlink.net>...

lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:

OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1)

whether my

girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours,


"Cute" is a term in esthetics, not anything like "X exists" so this

has

nothing to do with the scientific method of investigation.


My point exactly. After all, I am the one who stated "Science, of
course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of these
"hgihly subjective values".

Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.


Are you saying then that the existance of God is a "highly subjective
value"? Is that why His existance cannot be proven with the scientific
method?






Yes.

Either one believes, or one doesn't. It doesn't GET any more
"subjective" than that. <shrug> Using "science" to argue over God
is a waste of time. You might as well be arguing over whether angels
have navels.



(And once again I will point out that I do not assert -- nor do I deny
-- the existence of any gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
any sort. I simply don't care one way or the other, and I simply
don't see how it makes a shred of difference either way.)



Isn't it your argument that there might be a god 'cause scientists can't
prove that idea false?

(my previous response didn't show up, so I am reposting)
No. My argument is that science can't answer the question one way or
the other, so it's a waste of time to try and drag science into it.
Science can't answer religious questions. Pro or con. Period. It's
simply not a scientific matter. Indeed, sciecne cannot answer ANY
question of subjective morals or ethics or faith or values or whatever
the heck you want to call it. Those questions are what we pay
philosophers and theologians to argue over, not scientists.
I myself find the whole theist/atheist jihad to be rather silly and
pointless. But if y'all want to knock yourselves out with it, don't
drag science into it. It's not a scientific matter, it's not a
question science can answer, and attempting to MAKE science answer it
is an abuse of science.
(And in case you missed it in my previous post, I do not assert the
existence of any god or gods.)
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
.
User: "Bob White"

Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation 04 Nov 2003 08:19:14 PM
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041629.3610d69e@posting.google.com...

"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:<2hIpb.76989$ao4.218768@attbi_s51>...

"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031915.46f575a2@posting.google.com...

"Daniel T." <postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:<postmaster-7EAA8A.09455403112003@news03.west.earthlink.net>...

lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:

OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1)

whether my

girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours,


"Cute" is a term in esthetics, not anything like "X exists" so

this

has

nothing to do with the scientific method of investigation.


My point exactly. After all, I am the one who stated "Science, of
course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of these
"hgihly subjective values".

Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.


Are you saying then that the existance of God is a "highly

subjective

value"? Is that why His existance cannot be proven with the

scientific

method?






Yes.

Either one believes, or one doesn't. It doesn't GET any more
"subjective" than that. <shrug> Using "science" to argue over God
is a waste of time. You might as well be arguing over whether angels
have navels.



(And once again I will point out that I do not assert -- nor do I deny
-- the existence of any gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of
any sort. I simply don't care one way or the other, and I simply
don't see how it makes a shred of difference either way.)



Isn't it your argument that there might be a god 'cause scientists can't
prove that idea false?





(my previous response didn't show up, so I am reposting)



No. My argument is that science can't answer the question one way or
the other

"Or the other?? So you think somebody has to prove the negative?
So our answer is yes, you do argue that there might be a god, 'cause
scientists can't prove that idea false?
Arguing as you do that there is no proof the "god" hypothesis is false is
textbook logical fallacy. See Copi:
---
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
---
.