Justification for science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:15 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Why exactly is my thread idiotic? Am I not supposed to question your dogmas?

Throw away your computer you just lost the privilege of using the benifits of science. Now go out and start finding food in the woods cause everything in the supermarket is a benefit of science.

Sure, if you're going to label Science as "everything".

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Justification for science?
You know you can edit the thread title right.
Something like , please explain the meaning of these terms for me.
1 science
2 dogma
3 ad homenim

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You atheists seem to think that science/logic are the only ways to prove something. Do those things require proof, or are they just more dogmas to follow? Science is rather dogmatic...
Your phrasing throws bricks from its opening words; that the first response was a few hurled back at you shouldn't be surprising. But throwing bricks has scant proof of success at examining ideas so why it gets employed so routinely in forums is a mystery.

Meanwhile, taking your inquiry on its face as sincere, your implication is that science/logic are not the only means to achieve proof. Well, what else is there? Proof itself, as a concept, is the very root of science and logic; to argue that proof is achievable without logic or science is the same as claiming it's possible to go to Chicago by not going to Chicago. Or, to use another scientific term, it's a non-sequitur.

Logic is not limited to science; it's the core of everything we do with our cerebral cortex. There isn't a single sentence we utter that doesn't invoke logic, however indirect or implied. Your closing sentence was logic. It stated the conclusion of a classic syllogism, and out of convenience omitted the premises, but the premises were present all the same. Had they been included they would have run about as follows: Dogmatism is inflexible adherence to a belief, science is inflexibly adherent to a belief in natural laws, therefore science is dogmatic. That's straightforward logic, and we use it constantly.

But it doesn't constitute a proof until its premises are correct, and the second premise entirely misses what science is, and is therefore wrong.

Now, perhaps you intended premises other than what I put down. That's a common problem in our discourse: we don't spell out everything for the sake of conversational expedience but by so doing risk misinterpretation of what was meant.

But whether my interpretation of what you intended is right or not, the fact that you (and all of us) employ logic and reasoning in every utterance remains. We all use it, as well as science, whether we're consciously aware of it or not. Which raises my very first question at the top - what else is there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
13-02-2014, 12:39 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:14 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Can you type out the definition of dogma for me .

"prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group"
"a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation."
Source

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told my dad:

Move to Alaska. I'll even let you take a plane. BUT when you get there, you must live off the land. No electricity, no modern day tools, no guns, nothing.
You can feel free to make your own sword if you can find your own materials.
You can only eat what you collect, or kill. You can only live in a shelter you made. You can only wear clothes you made.
You can not use any modern day anything. Only then will you have the right to criticize science. Until then...

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:39 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:18 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group"
"a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation."
Source

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told my dad:

Move to Alaska. I'll even let you take a plane. BUT when you get there, you must live off the land. No electricity, no modern day tools, no guns, nothing.
You can feel free to make your own sword if you can find your own materials.
You can only eat what you collect, or kill. You can only live in a shelter you made. You can only wear clothes you made.
You can not use any modern day anything. Only then will you have the right to criticize science. Until then...

Am I not allowed to live in America then, since it was explored by people looking for religious converts?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:39 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You atheists seem to think that science/logic are the only ways to prove something. Do those things require proof, or are they just more dogmas to follow? Science is rather dogmatic...
Your phrasing throws bricks from its opening words; that the first response was a few hurled back at you shouldn't be surprising. But throwing bricks has scant proof of success at examining ideas so why it gets employed so routinely in forums is a mystery.

Meanwhile, taking your inquiry on its face as sincere, your implication is that science/logic are not the only means to achieve proof. Well, what else is there? Proof itself, as a concept, is the very root of science and logic; to argue that proof is achievable without logic or science is the same as claiming it's possible to go to Chicago by not going to Chicago. Or, to use another scientific term, it's a non-sequitur.

Logic is not limited to science; it's the core of everything we do with our cerebral cortex. There isn't a single sentence we utter that doesn't invoke logic, however indirect or implied. Your closing sentence was logic. It stated the conclusion of a classic syllogism, and out of convenience omitted the premises, but the premises were present all the same. Had they been included they would have run about as follows: Dogmatism is inflexible adherence to a belief, science is inflexibly adherent to a belief in natural laws, therefore science is dogmatic. That's straightforward logic, and we use it constantly.

But it doesn't constitute a proof until its premises are correct, and the second premise entirely misses what science is, and is therefore wrong.

Now, perhaps you intended premises other than what I put down. That's a common problem in our discourse: we don't spell out everything for the sake of conversational expedience but by so doing risk misinterpretation of what was meant.

But whether my interpretation of what you intended is right or not, the fact that you (and all of us) employ logic and reasoning in every utterance remains. We all use it, as well as science, whether we're consciously aware of it or not. Which raises my very first question at the top - what else is there?

Thank you for answering my question without getting arrogant and defensive.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:44 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:39 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  I'm going to tell you the same thing I told my dad:

Move to Alaska. I'll even let you take a plane. BUT when you get there, you must live off the land. No electricity, no modern day tools, no guns, nothing.
You can feel free to make your own sword if you can find your own materials.
You can only eat what you collect, or kill. You can only live in a shelter you made. You can only wear clothes you made.
You can not use any modern day anything. Only then will you have the right to criticize science. Until then...

Am I not allowed to live in America then, since it was explored by people looking for religious converts?

Dude... I said move to Alaska.
Besides that, they were looking for religious freedom.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You atheists seem to think that science/logic are the only ways to prove something. Do those things require proof, or are they just more dogmas to follow? Science is rather dogmatic...

Aren't proofs for math? Sorry, I digress.

Science is testable, no faith required. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
13-02-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(13-02-2014 12:46 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 12:44 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Am I not allowed to live in America then, since it was explored by people looking for religious converts?

Dude... I said move to Alaska.
Besides that, they were looking for religious freedom.

The founders of the United States were, not the first explorers.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Justification for science?
Now your confusing defensive with offensive Wink
Science is the opposite of dogma because rational disagreements are encouraged, fundamental to its validity.

You just happened to hit a pavlovian trigger with that bait OP.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: