| 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: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
02 Nov 2003 10:08:43 AM |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts. It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if we want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different things using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond matters of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1) whether my
girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours, and (2) whether murder is right
or wrong.
Please be as detailed as possible.
Unless, of course, you can come up
with a way to use the scientific method to test the statement "murder
is wrong".
Yes, you can. Illustrated, here
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html, with full support at
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
Oops----at best, this tells us why person A holds this moral opinion
and why person B holds that one. It doesn't tell us whether opinion A
or B is right or wrong.
I, uh, also don't see anything here that has anything to do with the
scientific method. Ya know, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis,
that sort of thing . . .
"Human Wrong" might, arguable, be *defined* as that trait that would
drive the human race to extinction, if continued unchecked.
Why would it be defined that way -- sounds like a moral judgement to
me. Why not define "human wrong" as "anything that goes against my own
narrow selfish interests". Ever heard of "group selection"? How
about "selfish DNA"?
But hey, please feel free to use the sicentific method to demonstrate
to me why your definition aboive of "human wrong" is "correct" and
mine isn't. After all, it's NOT jsut a matter of subjective opinion,
right? So you should have no more problem demonstrating that your
definition oif "human wrong" is correct and mine is wrong, than you
would of demonstrating that my measurement of the weight of an
electron is wrong and yours is right. right?
I don't recall claiming it did. <shrug>
However, I'[d sure like to see you attempt to apply the scientific
method to the simple question "is murder wrong". Please be as
detailed as possible and take as many screens as you need.
Unless, of course, accepting the statement "murder is wrong" is based
on nothing but beliefs, values and highly subjective opinions . . . .
. . .
I'm still waiting. . . . .
The thing that is wrong with "beliefs" is that it allows people to
accept things to be true, when they are in fact untrue, or at best,
when there is an absolute lack of proof to suggest that they are
true. By contrast, science is content with recognizing that some
things are unknown, and accept only those things that are supported
by scientific fact to be true.
OK. Why is murder wrong. Please demonstrate this to be true, using
the scientific method. Be as detailed as possible.
I do. The mathematics at
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/replicatortheory.html, forms the
basic underpinning to That which is mostly observed, is that which
replicates the most.
That's nice. And why is the thing that replicates the most, "morally
right". How does that make murder "wrong". Suppose that mass
murderers who killed their neighbors and took their food reproduced
more as a result. Would that make murder "right".
===============================================
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: "John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
02 Nov 2003 11:15:42 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts. It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if we want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different things using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond matters of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1) whether my
girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours, and (2) whether murder is right
or wrong.
You aren't following along in the thread, are you? This has already been
covered. Maybe you should make more effort to keep up on the reading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
02 Nov 2003 05:34:03 PM |
|
|
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net> wrote in message news:<GZapb.85632$Fm2.65190@attbi_s04>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts. It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if we want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different things using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond matters of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
OK. Then please use the scientific method to tell me (1) whether my
girlfriend/wife is cuter than yours, and (2) whether murder is right
or wrong.
You aren't following along in the thread, are you? This has already been
covered. Maybe you should make more effort to keep up on the reading?
I'm reading just fine. It has not been covered. Lots of hand waving,
lots of empty assertions, lots of "redefining". But still no science.
===============================================
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: "Pat" |
|
| Title: The scientific method of investigation |
02 Nov 2003 10:51:36 PM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311021534.a6723a7@posting.google.com...
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net> wrote
in message news:<GZapb.85632$Fm2.65190@attbi_s04>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts. It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to
reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if we
want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different things
using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond matters
of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth
of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
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.
(2) whether murder is right ...
Murder is a legal term, not anything like "X exists" so this has nothing to
do with the scientific method of investigation either. Murder is simply
unacceptable behavior because we all agree that it is, by consensus.
Rest assured that the scientific method of investigation will be used to
find out what the facts in evidence indicate in any particular case.
You aren't following along in the thread, are you? This has already been
covered. Maybe you should make more effort to keep up on the reading?
I'm reading just fine. It has not been covered. Lots of hand waving,
lots of empty assertions, lots of "redefining". But still no science.
You mean lots of hand waving by you theist true-believers, but still no
"God" demonstrated, just lots of lame attempts like yours to divert
attention away from the issue that is genuinely under discussion here, your
glaring inability to demonstrate any god at all.
"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/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
03 Nov 2003 07:29:59 AM |
|
|
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<R9lpb.89425$HS4.781489@attbi_s01>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311021534.a6723a7@posting.google.com...
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net> wrote
in message news:<GZapb.85632$Fm2.65190@attbi_s04>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts. It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to
reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if we
want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different things
using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond matters
of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the truth
of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
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.
(2) whether murder is right ...
Murder is a legal term, not anything like "X exists" so this has nothing to
do with the scientific method of investigation either. Murder is simply
unacceptable behavior because we all agree that it is, by consensus.
Again, my point exactly. It is a subjective decision that is not
amenable to the scientific method.
Rest assured that the scientific method of investigation will be used to
find out what the facts in evidence indicate in any particular case.
I certainly hope so. And yet the scientific method has its limits,
doesn't it.
You aren't following along in the thread, are you? This has already been
covered. Maybe you should make more effort to keep up on the reading?
I'm reading just fine. It has not been covered. Lots of hand waving,
lots of empty assertions, lots of "redefining". But still no science.
You mean lots of hand waving by you theist true-believers, but still no
"God" demonstrated
Uh, I am not a theist and I don't assert that any god or gods exist.
so it would be rather difficult for mne to attempt to demonstrate any.
.. . . . .
, just lots of lame attempts like yours to divert
attention away from the issue that is genuinely under discussion here, your
glaring inability to demonstrate any god at all.
I do not assert the existence of any god or gods. And that was not my
point. My point is this -------- someone was arguing that science
and religion "conflict" because science depends on evidence and
religion depends on belief. However, as you yourself have pointed out
above, ALL ethical and subjective questons depend solely on "belief"
--- the scientific method simply cannot be applied to any of them.
Hence, religion no more "conflicts" with science because it is based
solely on "belief" than the ethical statement "murder is wrong"
"conflicts" with science because it too is based solely on "belief".
Those who attempt to use science to "prove" their religious beliefs
are abusing and mis-using science. But, those who attempt to use
sciecne to "DIS-prove" other religious beleifs are equally abusing and
mis-using science. Science simply has nothing at all to say on any
matter than is not amenable to the scietnific method. Science can no
more prove or disprove any religious beleif than it can prove or
disprove whether murder is wrong or my girlfriend is cuter than yours.
When it comes to subjective matters of judgement, we are all on our
own. Science can't help us.
"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."
OK---then let's return to the discussion. Why are science and
religion in "conflict".
===============================================
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: "Pat Hand" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
03 Nov 2003 11:02:14 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311030529.7e778b08@posting.google.com...
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<R9lpb.89425$HS4.781489@attbi_s01>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311021534.a6723a7@posting.google.com...
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
wrote
in message news:<GZapb.85632$Fm2.65190@attbi_s04>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts.
It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to
reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if
we
want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different
things
using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond
matters
of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the
truth
of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
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".
The point you are missing is that the term, 'true' has no meaning in the
field of esthetics. Esthetics is all about matters of taste, not about
whether a particular statement about the nature of the universe is true (in
accord with the actual state of affairs).
In the logical, scientific method of investigation of the nature of things
in the universe, the term 'true' means that a particular statement about the
nature of the universe is in accord with the actual state of affairs.
'Taste', or 'belief' (personal subjective conviction) have no bearing here.
You can't mix and match terms from one field, science (knowledge of the
actual state of affairs), and entirely different field, esthetics (matters
of taste).
Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.
And that's OK, because there are no scientific questions (like, "Does X
exist, as alleged?") in esthetics. Esthetics is an entirely different field,
having to do with matters of taste, and having nothing to do with scientific
investigation of whether a statement about the universe is true (in accord
with the actual state of affairs), as alleged.
Any question on the difference between these two very different fields of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
(2) whether murder is right ...
Murder is a legal term, not anything like "X exists" so this has nothing
to
do with the scientific method of investigation either. Murder is simply
unacceptable behavior because we all agree that it is, by consensus.
Again, my point exactly. It is a subjective decision ...
That is not true. One does not get to decide whether to take another persons
life, without due process of law, and based on personal subjective
conviction (belief).
Murder is unacceptable behavior because we as a world community all agree
that it is unacceptable behavior, by consensus (and for very good reason),
anybody's personal subjective conviction (belief) be damned.
Now, back to the scientific method of investigation, here is how it is being
put into practice at SETI:
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
..... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
The null, "There are no ETs" stands forever, or until knocked down by some
ETs, whichever occurs first.
Any questions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
03 Nov 2003 09:30:45 PM |
|
|
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different fields of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
(2) whether murder is right ...
Murder is a legal term, not anything like "X exists" so this has nothing
to
do with the scientific method of investigation either. Murder is simply
unacceptable behavior because we all agree that it is, by consensus.
Again, my point exactly. It is a subjective decision ...
That is not true. One does not get to decide whether to take another persons
life, without due process of law, and based on personal subjective
conviction (belief).
But that law itself is the product of subjective belief. After all,
many societies have no law against murder and see nothing immoral
about taking another person's life without due process of law.
So once again, it becomes a matter of subjective opinion.
Murder is unacceptable behavior because we as a world community all agree
that it is unacceptable behavior, by consensus (and for very good reason),
anybody's personal subjective conviction (belief) be damned.
That's nice. Not long ago, we as a world community all agreed that
slavery was acceptable behavior, by consensus (and for a very good
reason), anybody;s personal subjective conviction (belief) be damned
-- especially the slave's subjective conviction.
How does that make it Right.
Is it your opinion that Right and Wrong are decided by popular vote?
Is capital punsihment morally Right? In the US, we have
democratcially decided that it is. In Europe, they have
democractically decided that it ain't. Which is Right, which is
Wrong.
Or is that an entirely subjective matter . . . . . .
<snip>
Any questions?
Just one ------ why do so many philosophers attempt to use "science"
to bolster their particular opinions.
===============================================
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 01:08:50 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief in the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
Here us why you are wrong: Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove,
theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Any questions on this point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Nov 2003 06:49:00 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief in the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right? Feel
free to do so: go ahead and use the scientific method to demonstrate
that god or gods do not exist.
Here us why you are wrong: Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove,
theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Any questions on this point?
Yes. How is "absence of belief" not an "opinion".
Your opinion is "gods don't exist". Their opinion is "gods do exist".
Neither of you can use the scientific method to objectively
demonstrate your position. How does that differ from an "opinion".
And THAT is my point. Leave SCIENCE out of it. It ain't a scientific
question, science can't answer it, and it's an abuse fo sciecne to
try to force it to deal with subjective matters that it simply can't
deal with. Your religious opinions (or lack of them) are no more
"scientific" than anyone else's. (Unless, of course, you think you
can apply the scientific method to demonstrate their validity.)
===============================================
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 07:53:50 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040449.7f41e875@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different
fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief in
the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right?
Demonstrate what? An absence of belief in the existence of gods? If it is
not there it is not there. Nothing to demonstrate. A vacuum. This particular
vacuum doesn't suck, the belief blows. 8^)
Feel
free to do so: go ahead and use the scientific method to demonstrate
that god or gods do not exist.
1. How many gods are demonstrated to be known to exist by your count?
2. Theism is an opinion or belief (subjective conviction, with no supporting
evidence) that an invisible god or gods might exist. Atheism is simply an
absence of theism, so atheists have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate,
theists do.
2. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the non-believers. Shifting the
burden of proof as you want to do is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_).
3. Logically the only reasonable default presumption is that there are zero
of whatever is proposed but not demonstrated to be in evidence. Can't have a
default presumption that there might be some or even one because there is no
proof that idea is false. That would be logical fallacy.
Understand so far?
Here us why you are wrong: Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove,
theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Any questions on this point?
Yes. How is "absence of belief" not an "opinion".
Atheism is simply an absence of your opinion that a magic invisible sky
pixie might exist. Consider a newborn. He has an absence of belief in the
existence of gods, but it is not an "opinion that gods do not exist" as you
suggest.
I can't have any opinion on something so ill-defined as the g - o - d letter
string. The term, 'god' is essentially meaningless. There is nothing real
specified to look for, and nothing real presented to even consider.
Your opinion is "gods don't exist".
You don't get to dictate what my opinions are. Understand, sir? I can't have
any opinion on something so ill-defined as the g - o - d letter string. The
term, 'god' is essentially meaningless.
Their opinion is "gods do exist".
And that is what stands in need of logically satisfactory supporting
evidence. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
Neither of you can use the scientific method to objectively
demonstrate your position.
by saying something like that, you demonstrate that you evidently do not
understand what the scientific method of investigation is all about.
It is not about "using the scientific method to demonstrate your position,"
as you think, it is about taking an objective and logical and systematic
(scientific) approach to investigating the facts in evidence to see if a
given proposition like "A god might exist" or "ETs might exist" to see if
the statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs (true).
The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption in
criminal court that the prosecution's charge is false, there is no guilt in
the accused) is the null of any existential proposition, like "There are no
ETs" for example.
Can't have a default presumption that the proposition being investigated is
true, there might be one or more, because there is no proof that idea is
false. That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question combined
with shifting tithe burden of proof.
Here is how the scientific method of investigation has been put in practice
by the scientists at SETI:
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
..... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
Now, do you have any legitimate questions, or just more of the same attempts
to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Nov 2003 06:41:43 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ycOpb.103742$Tr4.278615@attbi_s03>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040449.7f41e875@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different
fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief in
the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right?
Demonstrate what? An absence of belief in the existence of gods? If it is
not there it is not there. Nothing to demonstrate. A vacuum. This particular
vacuum doesn't suck, the belief blows. 8^)
Please use the scientific method to demonstrate that "it ain't there".
Feel
free to do so: go ahead and use the scientific method to demonstrate
that god or gods do not exist.
1. How many gods are demonstrated to be known to exist by your count?
2. Theism is an opinion or belief (subjective conviction, with no supporting
evidence) that an invisible god or gods might exist. Atheism is simply an
absence of theism, so atheists have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate,
theists do.
2. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the non-believers. Shifting the
burden of proof as you want to do is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_).
3. Logically the only reasonable default presumption is that there are zero
of whatever is proposed but not demonstrated to be in evidence. Can't have a
default presumption that there might be some or even one because there is no
proof that idea is false. That would be logical fallacy.
Understand so far?
I understand fine. I notice that you did not use the scientific
method to demonstrate anything --- just your subjective oipinions.
Which was precisely my point.
Here us why you are wrong: Atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove,
theists do. "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the
existence of gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Any questions on this point?
Yes. How is "absence of belief" not an "opinion".
Atheism is simply an absence of your opinion that a magic invisible sky
pixie might exist.
I don't have any opinion that an invisible super sky daddy might
exist. <shrug>
My statement is a simple one ---- science cannot demonstrqate that it
does or does not exist. Therefore any scientific argument over it is
a waste of time.
Consider a newborn. He has an absence of belief in the
existence of gods, but it is not an "opinion that gods do not exist" as you
suggest.
That's nice. And that has what, exactly, to do with whether science
can prove or disprove the existence of any supernatural sky daddies.
I can't have any opinion on something so ill-defined as the g - o - d letter
string. The term, 'god' is essentially meaningless. There is nothing real
specified to look for, and nothing real presented to even consider.
No *****.
Given that, how do you propose to study the matter scientifically.
Your opinion is "gods don't exist".
You don't get to dictate what my opinions are. Understand, sir? I can't have
any opinion on something so ill-defined as the g - o - d letter string. The
term, 'god' is essentially meaningless.
No *****.
Given than, how do you propose to study the matter scientifically.
Their opinion is "gods do exist".
And that is what stands in need of logically satisfactory supporting
evidence. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the non-believers.
No *****.
Given that, how do you propose to study the matter scientifically.
Neither of you can use the scientific method to objectively
demonstrate your position.
by saying something like that, you demonstrate that you evidently do not
understand what the scientific method of investigation is all about.
Then feel free to use the scientific method to demonstrate the
existence or non-existence of god. What experiment do you propose ot
test your hypothesis. How can the Pope or Richard dawkins both
replicate your results. Please be specific.
It is not about "using the scientific method to demonstrate your position,"
as you think, it is about taking an objective and logical and systematic
(scientific) approach to investigating the facts in evidence
I see. And why again do we accept YOUR "objective and logical and
systematic (scientific) approach, and not the "objective and logical
and systematic (scientific) approach of theistic evolutionary
biologists like Ayala or Dobzhanzsky.
Ot do you want us to just take your (subjective) word for it that YOUR
"objective logic" is better than THEIRS. . . . .
to see if a
given proposition like "A god might exist" or "ETs might exist" to see if
the statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs (true).
Science equals the scientific method. No scientific method, no
science.
I suppose that's why they CALL it "the scientific method".
Aristotle and his pals used "pure reason" and "objective logic" to
deduce all sorts of things about the world around them. And nearly
all of those things were dead wrong.
The only reasonable default presumption (like the default presumption in
criminal court that the prosecution's charge is false, there is no guilt in
the accused) is the null of any existential proposition, like "There are no
ETs" for example.
The default is "there is no scientific evidence" for A or B. Not that
"A or B do not exist".
Let's assume there is no scientific evidence for sky daddies. That is
NOT the same as "science shows that sky daddies don't exist".
But please, by all means go ahead and explain to me why, if "the
scientific approach" is so self-evident in concluding that "there are
no sky daddies", then why are so many scientists follwoers and
practitioners of various religions, and why is it that they don't see
any conflict at all between their religious faith and their scientific
practice.
Or do you just want us to take your (subjective) word for it that you
are right and they are wrong . . . . ?
Can't have a default presumption that the proposition being investigated is
true, there might be one or more, because there is no proof that idea is
false. That would be the logical fallacy of begging the question combined
with shifting tithe burden of proof.
Indeed. And the scientific method eliminates all those logical
fallcies. Either one measures something, or one doesn't. That's why
scientists use the scientific method, and not "logic" or "philosophy".
So I will ask again: can you use the scientific method to demonstrate
the existence or non-existence of sky daddies. If so, then stop
waving your arms and just SHOW ME. If not, then why is "do sky
daddies exist" a matter for scientific investigation in the first
place.
===============================================
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:238b53a4.0311041642.5eac1b63@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ycOpb.103742$Tr4.278615@attbi_s03>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040449.7f41e875@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different
fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief
in
the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right?
Demonstrate what? An absence of belief in the existence of gods? If it
is
not there it is not there. Nothing to demonstrate. A vacuum. This
particular
vacuum doesn't suck, the belief blows. 8^)
Please use the scientific method to demonstrate that "it ain't there".
Nobody has to, knucklehead. Non-believers don't have anything (any thing) to
prove, theists do. The theist assertion that a magic invisible deity might
exist is the issue that is genuinely under discussion here, not the
existence of non-believers. You're just trying to redefine the issue.
Your lame demand is the same lame fallacy of diversion Jeff Young, Mark
Richardson, and their ilk have been trying to get away with for eons.
"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/ignoratio.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
05 Nov 2003 05:28:26 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<t7Zpb.110563$e01.390051@attbi_s02>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041642.5eac1b63@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ycOpb.103742$Tr4.278615@attbi_s03>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040449.7f41e875@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very different
fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of belief
in
the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right?
Demonstrate what? An absence of belief in the existence of gods? If it
is
not there it is not there. Nothing to demonstrate. A vacuum. This
particular
vacuum doesn't suck, the belief blows. 8^)
Please use the scientific method to demonstrate that "it ain't there".
Nobody has to, knucklehead. Non-believers don't have anything (any thing) to
prove, theists do. The theist assertion that a magic invisible deity might
exist is the issue that is genuinely under discussion here, not the
existence of non-believers. You're just trying to redefine the issue.
Science cannot deal with the issue. That is my point.
If you disagree, then please feel free to show me how to use the
scientific method to deal with the issue.
Your lame demand is the same lame fallacy of diversion Jeff Young, Mark
Richardson, and their ilk have been trying to get away with for eons.
"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/ignoratio.asp
This issue under discussion is "the scientififc method of
investigation". See, it's written right there at the top of the
screen.
If you have some way of using the "scientific method of investigation"
to answer the question "does god exist" ( or even such a simple
quesiton as "is murder worng"), then stop waving your arms and just
SHOW ME.
<shrug>
===============================================
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 11:07:01 AM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311050329.7c73c9@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<t7Zpb.110563$e01.390051@attbi_s02>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041642.5eac1b63@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<ycOpb.103742$Tr4.278615@attbi_s03>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311040449.7f41e875@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1hIpb.73353$mZ5.470587@attbi_s54>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311031931.13f4ec1f@posting.google.com...
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in
message
news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
<snip>
Any question on the difference between these two very
different
fields
of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yeah --- why do philosophers (such as, oh, theists and
atheists)
insist on using "science" to try and buttress their particular
opinions.
I don't agree with your premise that atheism (an absence of
belief
in
the
existence of gods) is an "opinion" which requires "buttressing."
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
OK, if it ain't an "opinion" then you would have no problem
objectively demonstrating it using the scientific method, right?
Demonstrate what? An absence of belief in the existence of gods? If
it
is
not there it is not there. Nothing to demonstrate. A vacuum. This
particular
vacuum doesn't suck, the belief blows. 8^)
Please use the scientific method to demonstrate that "it ain't there".
Nobody has to, knucklehead. Non-believers don't have anything (any
thing) to
prove, theists do. The theist assertion that a magic invisible deity
might
exist is the issue that is genuinely under discussion here, not the
existence of non-believers. You're just trying to redefine the issue.
Science cannot deal with the issue. That is my point.
If you disagree, then please feel free to show me how to use the
scientific method to deal with the issue.
I already did. Did you miss it? The theist assertion that a magic invisible
deity might exist is the issue that is genuinely under discussion here. This
existential proposition is properly dealt with just like any other
existential proposition, "There might be found some ETs living somewhere in
the universe" or whatever.
Here is an example of the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation as it is being done by the scientists at SETI:
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
..... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
This reasonable default presumption, the null, "There are no ETs" stands
forever, or until knocked down by some ETs, whichever occurs first.
Now, how many more times will I have to show you this before you stop
asking, "Will you please show me how to use the scientific method?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Nov 2003 07:00:31 AM |
|
|
"Pat Hand" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<hTvpb.96839$e01.332701@attbi_s02>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311030529.7e778b08@posting.google.com...
"Pat" <badaddressforspammers@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:<R9lpb.89425$HS4.781489@attbi_s01>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311021534.a6723a7@posting.google.com...
"John McTavish, true Scotian, true agnostic" <jmctavish@hootmon.net>
wrote
in message news:<GZapb.85632$Fm2.65190@attbi_s04>...
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311020808.24587f0d@posting.google.com...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<8W4pb.78$Yt4.70@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Lenny Flank wrote:
Steve Makohin <smakohin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<smakohin-572065.16522401112003@enews.newsguy.com>...
Science deals with the real world, and it deals with facts.
It is
designed to get to the truth, even at the cost of having to
reject
long-held beliefs and perceptions. No so with religion. So if
we
want
to use your words that religion "deal[s] with different
things
using
different methods," we must surely conclude it is extremely
ineffective at getting to the truth, and getting beyond
matters
of
faith, beliefs, and highly subjective values.
Science, of course, is equally ineffective at getting to the
truth
of
those "highly subjective values".
Actually, not true. Science is making decent inroads.
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".
The point you are missing is that the term, 'true' has no meaning in the
field of esthetics. Esthetics is all about matters of taste, not about
whether a particular statement about the nature of the universe is true (in
accord with the actual state of affairs).
My point exactly.
That is not true merely of aesthetics, but also of ethics, morality,
values, justice, and any other subjective matter of judgement.
In the logical, scientific method of investigation of the nature of things
in the universe, the term 'true' means that a particular statement about the
nature of the universe is in accord with the actual state of affairs.
'Taste', or 'belief' (personal subjective conviction) have no bearing here.
You can't mix and match terms from one field, science (knowledge of the
actual state of affairs), and entirely different field, esthetics (matters
of taste).
Exactly my point. And you also can't mix and match terms or procedures
from one field, science (knowledge fo the actual state of affairs) and
an entirely different field, ethics (matters of what "ought to be").
Or religion (matters of "what I believe").
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. They do not
ask the same questions and do not use the same method to answer those
questions. The same is true of ethics, morality, jsutice or any other
matter of subjective judgement. When someone attempts to use
"science" to answer an ethical or moral amtter, he is abusing science
by attempting to force it to answer matters that it simply cannot deal
with. Whatever method anyone -- atheist or theist or agnostic or
whatever --- uses to judge matters of ethics or morality, whether it
is "god told me this is wrong" to "my conscience told me that this is
wrong" to "my mommy and daddy told me that this is wrong", it is NOT
SCIENCE. Science simply cannot be sued to answer matters of
subjective judgement. Whatever method you use, it ain't science.
Science simply can't answer those questions.
Which is my entire point.
Science cannot be applied to anything that is not amenable to the
scientific method.
And that's OK, because there are no scientific questions (like, "Does X
exist, as alleged?") in esthetics. Esthetics is an entirely different field,
having to do with matters of taste, and having nothing to do with scientific
investigation of whether a statement about the universe is true (in accord
with the actual state of affairs), as alleged.
Any question on the difference between these two very different fields of
philosophy, esthetics and science?
Yes --- why do so many people keep attempting to force sciecne to
answer philosophical and ethical questions.
(2) whether murder is right ...
Murder is a legal term, not anything like "X exists" so this has nothing
to
do with the scientific method of investigation either. Murder is simply
unacceptable behavior because we all agree that it is, by consensus.
Again, my point exactly. It is a subjective decision ...
That is not true. One does not get to decide whether to take another persons
life, without due process of law, and based on personal subjective
conviction (belief).
The law itself is based on subjective opinion. Unless you think it
was carved in stone by some god-thing somewhere. . . . .
Murder is unacceptable behavior because we as a world community all agree
that it is unacceptable behavior, by consensus (and for very good reason),
anybody's personal subjective conviction (belief) be damned.
What about societies such as Sparta or the Inuit, who practiced
infanticide routinely and did not view it as "unacceptablke" in any
way shape or form. What about societiies such as feudal Japan, where
it was perfectly acceptable for a samurai to test the sharpness of his
blade on any hi-nin who happened to be nearby.
If we as a world community "agree" on something, then it is a matter
of opinion. We do not ask the world commiunity to "agree" on the
speed of light, or the mass of an electron. Those are scientific
matters not based on opinion.
On the other hand, the fact that lots of people "agree" on some matter
of ethics or morality doesn't make it "Right", and doesn't make it any
less "subjective". After all, it wasn't very long ago that this
"world commuity" "agreed" that slavery was perfectly acceptable. YOU
think slavery unacceptable. THEY thought it perfectly acceptable. It
doesn't GET any more "subjective" than that. <shrug>
Now, back to the scientific method of investigation, here is how it is being
put into practice at SETI:
I'd rather see it put into practice to answer the simple question "is
murder wrong". . . . .
===============================================
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 08:32:21 AM |
|
|
"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). 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.
You have to produce logically satisfactory objective evidence that he
deserves to have the book thrown at him for behavior constituting a crime.
Due process of law is required. A scientific investigation has to be done,
and it must be done by crime scene investigators trained in the scientific
method of investigation. 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.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Nov 2003 09:15:22 AM |
|
|
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 the two are separate.
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.
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 10:08:51 AM |
|
|
"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?
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.
You have to produce logically satisfactory objective evidence that he
deserves to have the book thrown at him for behavior constituting a crime.
Due process of law is required. A scientific investigation has to be done,
and it must be done by crime scene investigators trained in the scientific
method of investigation. 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.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
04 Nov 2003 06:45:52 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<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?
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).
Uh, then what does determine individual behavior. Elves? Guardian
angels? The scientific method?
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 not. Can you demonstrate any of that using the scientific method?
You have to produce logically satisfactory objective evidence that he
deserves to have the book thrown at him for behavior constituting a crime.
That's nice. If it's so logical and objective, why have people been
arguing over it for two thousand-pls years now.
Due process of law is required.
Is that an opinion, or is that a law of nature that can be
demonstrated by the scientific method.
A scientific investigation has to be done,
and it must be done by crime scene investigators trained in the scientific
method of investigation.
That's nice. And what again decides which actions constitute the
"crimes" that these highly trained scientists will be "investigating"?
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.)
I see them using the scientific method to investigate murders. I do
NOT see them using the scientific method to decide of murder is wrong.
Perhaps you could point to that part for me . . . . .?
===============================================
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 08:40:15 PM |
|
|
"Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in message
news:238b53a4.0311041646.130f3aaa@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<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?
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).
Uh, then what does determine individual behavior.
That's a scientific question! Good for you. So far, the scientific evidence
tends to indicate that behavior is determined by the contingencies of
reinforcement. See http://tinylink.com/?WkKP4jqXq4
For example, you | | | | | | | | | | | | |
