Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Our universe maybe a little younger than previously thought
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ReformedApologist View PostIt's interesting, those who hold to a radical view scientism always talk about how Science is objective in its research, and yet they can come up with different numbers that contradict previous ideas. Science used to say the universe was 14 Billion years old, and now new evidence has come to light that this may not be the case. But of course science is never neutral, rather it is interpreted by the presuppositions of the scientist. So this news never surprises me.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostAre you implying 'scientism' didn't/doesn't exist?
I like the following explanation:
Read on . . .Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-29-2019, 11:03 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostNo, you need to read what he wrote more carefully:
"directly above your post", i.e post #6 which was directly above the post of yours to which he was replying. He was being perfectly clear, you just need to work on your reading comprehension.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe issue would be with rogue06, and you have offered nothing constructive to the conversation.
(and you were actually responding to Chrawnus)The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAgain it is a problem(?) between me and rogue06,
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Postand you have provided nothing constructive.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt is longer than just the two posts, and addressed to me NOT YOU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostYour point being?
I have shown that the communication problem is because of you, not rogue.
Yes, it is longer than just the two posts, and yes, it is addressed to you. But he's not REFERRING to anything you wrote however, but to post #6 that Seeker wrote. In post #8 Rogue is saying that post #6 is an example of scientism and in post #10 he's explaining how post #6 is an example of scientism.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually yes and no, it exists, but it is a bogus ambiguous 'stone' word that fundamentalists like to throw at science, and has no constructive meaning. Science is science, and not related to the diverse conflicting philosophical and theological assumptions beyond Methodological Naturalism.
I like the following explanation:
Read on . . .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI read the article you linked to. Buhler is just juggling with words and playing fast and loose with terms such as 'science' and 'knowledge' and begging the question that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. Nothing in the article actually brings any clarity to the issue of whether scientism is a meaningful term.
Please read at least the cited portion, if not the whole article, respond again coherently, and cite the article specifically in context.
Where did he specifically claim: 'all knowledge is scientific knowledge?'
I can probably interpret this article to conclude that 'Scientific knowledge is the product of Methodological Naturalism only.'Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-29-2019, 11:50 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour response was more than a little to quick. You apparently did not read the article. It did not address the question 'whether all knowledge is scientific knowledge.'
Furthermore:
And then further on in the text he claims that all genuine knowledge is scientific knowledge.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPlease read at least the cited portion, if not the whole article, respond again coherently, and cite the article specifically in context.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhere did he specifically claim: 'all knowledge is scientific knowledge?'
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI can probably interpret this article to conclude that 'Scientific knowledge is the product of Methodological Naturalism only.'
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAnd yet directly above your post we see an example of it.
'There are Discoveries and Inventions
There are 'Hows' and 'Whys'
The 'Hows' can only be discovered
The 'Whys' can only be made up'
But I don't agree that this is an example of 'scientism', whatever you mean by that. The guy who wrote that isn't even an atheist, he's an agnostic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06There are those who think that science can answer virtually any question. They are beholden to philosophical or ontological naturalism[1]. While science is extremely good at answering questions dealing with "how" it often fails miserably at answering the questions dealing with why. Those questions are best answered by theologians and philosophers.
1. as opposed to methodological naturalism which is an entirely different thing
Originally posted by ReformedApologist View PostIt's interesting, those who hold to a radical view scientism always talk about how Science is objective in its research, and yet they can come up with different numbers that contradict previous ideas. Science used to say the universe was 14 Billion years old, and now new evidence has come to light that this may not be the case. But of course science is never neutral, rather it is interpreted by the presuppositions of the scientist. So this news never surprises me.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
4 responses
35 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 09:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment