What is "anti-science"?

[shunyadragon]

no duh. tell that to Tassman.

It is your post that made the claim I responded to, unless there was a strong element of sarcasm. I agree with Tassman that the faith and trust in science is very very different from the faith and trust in Theism. In science the faith and trust in the methodology that is supported by objective evidence and consistent. This is very much absent in Theistic metaphysical beliefs.

[HMS_Beagle]

Okay, and the questioning can come first and lead to the learning. So even that is not a prerequisite to questioning. And what you say here is different from the claim of yours that we are discussing: that if the questioner does not provide evidence to support his skepticism, then that makes him anti-science. Unless I'm misunderstanding your claim.

More deliberate twisting of what I said. Strike three, you're out.

If I have done so it is certainly not intentional. .

You've done it against too many different people too many times for it not to be intentional. New working hypothesis is you're just a trolling dishonest Creationist clown.

[Tassman]

Show us the scientific tests that prove that Julius Caesar was murdered. And please replicate them and let us know the results. M'kay? Thanks.

Typical Sparko avoidance tactic! Why are Christians so devious? Oh I know they have no substantive argument to support their salvation fantasies. The historical-critical methodology employed by historians is quite different from scientific methodology except incidentally as per carbon-dating etc.

[Roy]

A person's descriptions of what they did and what they observed is exactly what testimony is. It may be very detailed and accurate testimony of exactly what they did and how they did it and precisely what they observed. It may very well be detailed enough that readers could repeat the same steps.

Or it may not be. It usually is not, particularly in the most common sense of testimony, which is a written or oral statement used in court.

Obviously you and perhaps others are using a different definition of "testimony". If so, please make it clear what definition you are using.

We're using the standard definition of testimony. You are the one who is insisting that scientific publications are 'testimony' and ignoring that they go far beyond the normal usage of that term.

It is not unknown for creation advocates and other frauds to try to create equivalence between their unsupported pseudoscientific pronouncements and the well-evidenced scientific consensus, by dismissing the detailed work of scientists as mere opinion.

Those attempts are indistinguishable from your posts.

[Roy]

The reason I'm asking is that it seems much more plausible that they think it's true. (And I bet if I ask them they'll say they think it is true.)

Then go ask them.

Or you could read this thread, where Jon Sarfati was asked about his use of a notorious quote-mine - and tried to shift the blame.

Or you could ask Jorge if this never-retracted cite of his is true:

"One part of Dima was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraaphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975)

[Sparko]

It is your post that made the claim I responded to, unless there was a strong element of sarcasm. I agree with Tassman that the faith and trust in science is very very different from the faith and trust in Theism. In science the faith and trust in the methodology that is supported by objective evidence and consistent. This is very much absent in Theistic metaphysical beliefs.

Shuny, your reading comprehension is horrible.

[Sparko]

Typical Sparko avoidance tactic!

and then you go on to avoid my post.

Why are Christians so devious? Oh I know they have no substantive argument to support their salvation fantasies.

The historical-critical methodology employed by historians is quite different from scientific methodology except incidentally as per carbon-dating etc.

oh so you ADMIT that historical events are not subject to the scientific method of testing and repeatability? So your objection in your previous post was just a distraction.

This is testimony. But unlike scientific "testimony" there is no body of tested experiments available for anyone to replicate, it is merely subjective (some would say delusional) persobal experience.

The same can be said for all historical facts according to your parameters. History cannot be tested or replicated so according to you all of history is just "subjective (some would say delusional) persobal experience."

[Tassman]

oh so you ADMIT that historical events are not subject to the scientific method of testing and repeatability? So your objection in your previous post was just a distraction.

There's nothing to "admit". You've made a 'category error'. Our knowledge of historical events is subject to a different methodology than the scientific one.

The same can be said for all historical facts according to your parameters. History cannot be tested or replicated so according to you all of history is just "subjective (some would say delusional) persobal experience."

Straw man! Historical-critical methodology has its own criteria for assessing the accuracy of the historical record. It is not subjective, you're confusing the historical method with faith and trust in Theism.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, your reading comprehension is horrible.

It is your writing comprehension that is not only questionable, but very foggy if you do not mean what you say.

[oxmixmudd]

It is your writing comprehension that is not only questionable, but very foggy if you do not mean what you say.

You have all missed the shortest and the most concise answer to the question of the op:

What is 'anti science'?

Donald Trump

[Sparko]

There's nothing to "admit". You've made a 'category error'. Our knowledge of historical events is subject to a different methodology than the scientific one.



Straw man! Historical-critical methodology has its own criteria for assessing the accuracy of the historical record. It is not subjective, you're confusing the historical method with faith and trust in Theism.

So then why were you making this ignorant argument against the historic evidence for our faith?
"But unlike scientific "testimony" there is no body of tested experiments available for anyone to replicate"

You have destroyed your previous argument once again.

[Tassman]

So then why were you making this ignorant argument against the historic evidence for our faith?
"But unlike scientific "testimony" there is no body of tested experiments available for anyone to replicate"

You have destroyed your previous argument once again.

I don’t know what you’re referring to; as usual you’re dishonestly blurring the argument. The fact is that historical-critical methodology is different to the scientific method and the former does not encompass miracles because miracles cannot be shown to be true. So while historical methodology can show that Jesus (probably) lived and preached, it stops short of the ‘magic stuff’ associated with the Jesus story.

[shunyadragon]

You have all missed the shortest and the most concise answer to the question of the op:

What is 'anti science'?

Donald Trump

. . . and his evangelical VP and cabinet.

[HMS_Beagle]

Joel the Troll seems to have taken a stroll. How droll.

[JonathanL]

Joel the Troll seems to have taken a stroll. How droll.

Not surprising given how disrespectfully you and some others in this thread have been treating him. I wouldn't stay long in a thread were people were slinging baseless accusations of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation at me either. Joel's been nothing but respectful towards you and others in this thread, while you've been, well...