Justification for science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Justification for science?
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin

This is the most succinct statement of the difference between science and and blind dogma I've ever come across. You can even deploy it against junk science like CAGW. (Not all dogmas are religious.)
One should be suspicious of any belief that doesn't seem to change as relevant new evidence emerges. Religion just happens to be the oldest inaccurate explanation for the way the natural world functions.
It may be of comfort to know you could cram religious beliefs into the gaps where science can never penetrate, like beneath Heisenberg's veil, and you'll never have to defend something as ridiculous as the Earth being created 10,000 years ago (right along with every shaft of light from Andromeda, instantaneously created 2,528,000 light years in transit toward Earth just to preserve the illusion of an ancient universe). Stick Mount Olympus behind the Uncertainty Principle and nobody will ever climb it to find that Zeus has left the building.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jumpy Joshi's post
18-02-2014, 10:30 AM
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...

Yeah, that whole requiring evidence thing is so dogmatic. As has been pointed out, science changes it stance when something is proved to be wrong. Dogma is the exact opposite of that. It says it is not to be questioned, and to be accepted as truth no matter what. So, what you are suggesting is that there are things we should assume to be true even though there is no evidence for those claims? I'm amazed at how desperate religious people are to reassure themselves that their irrational religious claims are true.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
18-02-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(17-02-2014 05:29 PM)jonb Wrote:  
(17-02-2014 05:12 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Well, you just screw your eyes shut, plug your ears, and wish really really hard, until you believe it's true.

No that is belief, the OP implied there is a non-logical means of attaining a proof, I am just asking to be shown this.

It is not too much to ask, is it?

He is always welcome to take the Taqiyya Mockingbird Solipsism Challenge...


[Image: 19_04_2013fgf4_200_17_.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: Justification for science?
Too bad he's not coming back, trolls are fun.
Though only some trolls. Those we have right now are quite dull.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 03:10 PM
Justification for science?
(18-02-2014 08:48 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
-Tim Minchin

This is the most succinct statement of the difference between science and and blind dogma I've ever come across. You can even deploy it against junk science like CAGW. (Not all dogmas are religious.)
One should be suspicious of any belief that doesn't seem to change as relevant new evidence emerges. Religion just happens to be the oldest inaccurate explanation for the way the natural world functions.
It may be of comfort to know you could cram religious beliefs into the gaps where science can never penetrate, like beneath Heisenberg's veil, and you'll never have to defend something as ridiculous as the Earth being created 10,000 years ago (right along with every shaft of light from Andromeda, instantaneously created 2,528,000 light years in transit toward Earth just to preserve the illusion of an ancient universe). Stick Mount Olympus behind the Uncertainty Principle and nobody will ever climb it to find that Zeus has left the building.

Great until CAGW:

"CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.[1] . . . As for motivation, it's an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old "anthropogenic global warming" — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century,[4] so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding "catastrophic" gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism.[5]"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CAGW

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
18-02-2014, 04:29 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...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatic
Quote:Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogmatic
Quote:asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
The scientific method is a robust, empirically based system which sets out to find natural explanations for natural events.
Once a hypothesis has been formed (which meets certain criteria e.g. must be measurable, must be falsifiable) then much care and consideration is taken to define an document re-creatable tests presenting consistent results independent of the specific people carrying out the tests and independent of those people's individual beliefs.
Those tests are then carried out and the conclusion along with the test results and description of the tests performed are then peer reviewed and published. Generally other scientists then offer challenges to the details of the tests highlighting anything that might potentially invalidate the test or the test results. Test are then often recreated and results checked for consistency against the original.
This approach is contrary to dogmatism.

If you think there is more going on than just natural causes and hence don't think methodological materialism is all encompassing, then of course you are free to explore supernatural causes.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a method of discovery regarding supernatural causes which includes experimentation, falsifiable criteria, re-creatable experiments with consistent results, transparency...
It would be interesting to hear from you as to how supernatural causes can be evaluated, tested, verified, falsified etc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-02-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Justification for science?
(18-02-2014 02:21 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  He is always welcome to take the Taqiyya Mockingbird Solipsism Challenge...

You don't know what solipsism is. The idea of solipsism is not inconsistent with the possibility of suicide.

Please explain how solipsism is incompatible with suicide.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2014, 03:42 AM
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...
Science is the exact opposite of dogmatic. Science is not a set of unquestionable beliefs, in fact you are encouraged to question science. Not just me, you too! If you think there are scientific facts that are incorrect, by all means go out, gather your evidence and disprove them. No one's stopping you.


If you're having difficulty understanding a specific scientific concept, go ahead and ask away I'll do my best to explain it to you. I'll even be honest if it's just something I simply don't know the answer to, perhaps point you in the direction where you can find the answer. There's nothing wrong with not understanding something, just go ahead and ask!

:-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like realityfacade's post
20-02-2014, 07:34 AM
RE: Justification for science?
(18-02-2014 03:10 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Great until CAGW:

"CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word ...

It's still junk science, whatever nomenclature you choose for it. "Global Warming Alarmism" seems to be in somewhat wider use to mean the same thing.

Discussing it further here would be off-topic. There's a walls-of-text-menagerie thread here if you'd like to wade in and continue the discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: