Originally posted by Jaecp

Your focusing on benefit because you think the ambiguity here will shield you weak position. Tass is saying "look, science can actually do stuff, so we believe in its core claims. He also says that science has been very beneficial." Disputing the second part by saying "science has been dangerous/religion has done beneficial stuff" does not dispute his first half.

Where are his answers to my questions in that post? you did not show them and you arguing about what I am focusing on tacitly concedes that he did not answer the post. So show where he answered them you ignorant half witted intellectual coward.

Secondly, no one is disputing the benefit you ignorant half wit, in fact the benefit of science is part of my point, due to your logical ignorance you wouldn't understand that. If we should believe in something because it is beneficial or it can 'do stuff' should we in turn reject it because it has also been proven it is not beneficial and dangerous? thirdly, you ignorant half wit other things such as religion can do stuff and are beneficial as well, thus should we believe in its core claims?(that was teh 2nd question) This is called LOGIC, but you're self taught in that subject and display a fundamental ignorance in it just about every single time you post.

Lovely,

Too bad charity does not corroborate the core christian claims in the way that science doing its things demonstrates science is working.

Wow, how stupid are you? seriously, this is the 2nd time I've had to break down and call yet another trolling ignorant atheist on this message board stupid. Charity and inventions are to Christianity what tassman claims benefits is to science. According to your and tassmans stupid logic one should accept methodolical naturalism/scientific method because of its benefits but following that absurd logic one should also accept religion as well.

Nope, you've said that it mattes not why it matters.

This is blindingly apparent

Nope, I have said why it matters in post #768. In fact, a quck re-cap shows I already answerd this question:
Post #765 Jaecp:
I was asking why it mattered that the people who started science were religious,
Post #768 Td:

It matters because According to tassmans logic one should adopt his philosophical worldview because it has proven to be beneficial to mankind, well theists are directly responsible for said benefit.

Since jaecp is so obviously ignorant in logic and reading comprehension I'll break it down even further.

Jaecp: Why does it matter?
Td: It matters because X

As anyoen can clearly see, I answered why it matters like 2 pages ago, but jaecp in his ignorance in reading comprehension cannot see that. What will he do? ignore this.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Well, this is my take. Most agnostics, colloquially, are atheists, technically. Since they don't believe in god even though they don't claim to have absolute disproof of any and all. One thing I like to keep in mind is why to believe something in the first place. This is where the classic teapot came in, that one does not need to be agnostic to things that aren't supported.

I think that we are generally in agreement here. For me, anyway, the debate has been and should be about credible evidence - what factors establish credibility and how the definition of evidence is determined. From there we can begin to address whether the data we have meets the credibility standards we have set in order to be counted as evidence for a given proposition. In the hard sciences, establishing the rules and classifying the data is generally easy. However, in sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, and the other soft sciences, the line gets more blurred.

Re: Bold. I don't know how they are chosen precisely, I imagine some combination of early life experience and how they are raised. I do know how we can solve it though. Which one gets results. If basing ideas off of personal experience got us results like repeatably, then we wouldn't pan argument from personal experience. The existence of contradictory personal experience is an important point as well.

But you see, that's just it. You have certain values (like "getting results") that you embrace as a fundamental value of your paradigm. That is one of the reasons that you embrace the worldview that you do. Even the conclusion that the question can be solved is a conclusion that you have reached after filtering the question through your worldview.

You have answered from the philosophical position that "repeatable results" has more value than "personal experience". This is not unreasonable. However, it is not always true that "repeatable results" will give a more factual result than "personal experience", and even the data from the results will be interpreted through your personal paradigm.

And now you hopefully can see how this could support the idea that scientific inquiry is relativistic in nature, and not objective.

Your part about we haven't learned so much as.redefined? This, to me, sounds like spin. Overlaying old ideas with better ones is still learning.

Yes and no. Do we have more knowledge? It's an adventure in epistemology. If we know that the Earth is the center of the universe and are then shown to be incorrect, did we know the fact at all? If you say "yes," then knowledge hasn't increased, merely changed from true to false. If you say "no," then what we know is merely what we believe... which is a function of our paradigm.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Al

I think that we are generally in agreement here. For me, anyway, the debate has been and should be about credible evidence - what factors establish credibility and how the definition of evidence is determined. From there we can begin to address whether the data we have meets the credibility standards we have set in order to be counted as evidence for a given proposition. In the hard sciences, establishing the rules and classifying the data is generally easy. However, in sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, and the other soft sciences, the line gets more blurred.

Yep,

My hope is that with enough information we can work to get as many soft sciences to be more like hard sciences. For the sciences that are exercises in historical inference, we are never (sans time machines) going to have 100% of a record of the past of course. For sociology and other sciences of human interaction and the inward self, I've felt that its out lack of a complete understanding of the brain that is holding them back from being hard sciences.

Originally posted by Al

But you see, that's just it. You have certain values (like "getting results") that you embrace as a fundamental value of your paradigm. That is one of the reasons that you embrace the worldview that you do. Even the conclusion that the question can be solved is a conclusion that you have reached after filtering the question through your worldview.

You have answered from the philosophical position that "repeatable results" has more value than "personal experience". This is not unreasonable. However, it is not always true that "repeatable results" will give a more factual result than "personal experience", and even the data from the results will be interpreted through your personal paradigm.

And now you hopefully can see how this could support the idea that scientific inquiry is relativistic in nature, and not objective.

I can see why someone would make the case for it. However, when dealing with the supernatural or religious claims, as is often the case on a forum that is, well, dedicated to the it, we can see how repeatability is trumped by personal experience when we have conflicting personal experience. We currently have no way for two people who make argument purely from personal experience to do much more than talk at each other, no?

Of course personal experience is more useful for beauty or love or whatnot. When it comes to explaining the world around us, personal experience must cede to science though, no?

Originally posted by Al

Yes and no. Do we have more knowledge? It's an adventure in epistemology. If we know that the Earth is the center of the universe and are then shown to be incorrect, did we know the fact at all? If you say "yes," then knowledge hasn't increased, merely changed from true to false. If you say "no," then what we know is merely what we believe... which is a function of our paradigm.

What do you think?

I remember something about, I believe it was Thomas Edison, who was asked if he was bothered about failing to create a lightbulb, and his reply was "We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb"

Your statement seems to be equating any given statement of fact as being an "item" of knowledge, when the increased precision of knowledge is another valid way to describe our advances. Sure, the various physics theories of the last couple hundred years tend to replace each other, but each time we were able to shift over to a more precise system that we could do more with. It'd be like arguing that you didn't get a better gas mileage on your new car, you just replaced your old gas mileage. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Jaecp

Snip

I can see why someone would make the case for it. However, when dealing with the supernatural or religious claims, as is often the case on a forum that is, well, dedicated to the it, we can see how repeatability is trumped by personal experience when we have conflicting personal experience. We currently have no way for two people who make argument purely from personal experience to do much more than talk at each other, no?

Of course personal experience is more useful for beauty or love or whatnot. When it comes to explaining the world around us, personal experience must cede to science though, no?

That is ridiculous.
I have many friends with personal experiences and we exchange ideas all the time.
What planet did you say you came from?
Or do you just have no friends?

Attached is an illustration of the known universe.
Guess how much your sacred science (thinks it) “understands”.

How about the 4%?

Was referring to claims SM. When I write personal experience, translate it to "argument from personal experience" if that helps.

Originally posted by TheologicalDisc

No, you did not answer my questions which are found here:

1. You're arguing that one should adopt your philosophical presumption becuase it has proved enormously productive and beneficial for mankind? so should one in turn reject your philosophical presumption because it has also proved enormously dangerous and deadly for mankind as well?

No! What I actually said twice was: “The enormous productivity of science is evidence of its success as a system but the primary argument in its favor is that is that the scientific method provides for the attainment of knowledge which is testable, falsifiable, predictive and consistent” I even emphasized the important bit, i.e. the “primary argument” so as to allow for your limited skills in comprehension.

You have not said or even hinted at anything in regards to the proof that your philosophical presumption i.e. scientific method and naturalism has also proved enormously dangerous and deadly for mankind and thus by your own logic should we reject your philosophical presumption?

Re my bolding, it is YOU asserting without evidence that the “scientific method and naturalism has also proved enormously dangerous and deadly for mankind”. Justify this unsupported assertion.

Also, you ignored the point that religious supernaturalism lacks a systematic method for understanding and testing the supernatural worldview with a consequent lack of evidence of the supernatural. This is exemplified by the huge number of different religious belief systems over many cultures and eras...ALL claiming to be true. Thus we have in the methodological naturalism of science a successful system which has been enormously productive. And in the revelatory assumptions of religion we have no system with the consequence of a plethora of religions many of which have been and are murderous.

2. what about the productive benefits for mankind in regards to religion? or are you just dismissing that?
You never once mentioned the productive benefits for mankind in regards to religion, are you just dismissing that? according to your logic religion is proven.

It is YOU making the unsupported claim of “productive benefits for mankind in regards to religion”. YOU support YOUR assertion.

3. what about the fact that the scientific method was created by religious people in the first place and that a lot of people that have created those benefits were theists using the scientific method? or do you just ignore all of that stuff?

You never once mentioned the fact that the scientific method was created by religions people and religions people have created benefits.

Sigh! Virtually everyone was nominally theist at the time of the Renaissance and Enlightenment regardless of what they actually believed. Those who weren’t were ostracized. Regardless, this is not the situation now. Leading scientists now number among the highest percentage of atheists of any professional discipline. That is, the very people who know most about how the universe functions do not believe that god-did-it. And this doesn’t alter the fact that the scientific method arose as a consequence of the Renaissance and The Enlightenment and was resisted by the religious establishment from the very start...from the heliocentric solar system to the theory of evolution. Science has flourished despite religion not because of it. Did you miss this? I will say it again: “Science has flourished despite religion not because of it. And still does!

So no, you did not answer any of my questions at all. It isn't hard, you know how to quote and respond to questions, you've done it before, yet here you are not doing it.

Oh, but I did. I responded to your assertions which were supported by argument and dismised your empty assertions. Also,you ignored a point of mine as well as misunderstanding my opening point.

Originally posted by shadowmaster

That is ridiculous.
I have many friends with personal experiences and we exchange ideas all the time.
What planet did you say you came from?
Or do you just have no friends?

Attached is an illustration of the known universe.
Guess how much your sacred science (thinks it) “understands”.

How about the 4%?

And, how much was understood about the universe, during the thousands of years which preceded the introduction of the scientific method a mere 500 years ago...when the earth was flat and the centre of the universe? And why the dismissive sarcasm about what you claim is your own profession?

snipped all the lecture about how science works.

Originally posted by Tassman

Re my bolding, it is YOU asserting without evidence that the “scientific method and naturalism has also proved enormously dangerous and deadly for mankind”. Justify this unsupported assertion. .

See attachment.

Tassy, there you go again. You know nothing about science but are trying to tell others how it works. Do you not realize that you should first get educated?

Originally posted by Tassman

And, how much was understood about the universe, during the thousands of years which preceded the introduction of the scientific method a mere 500 years ago...when the earth was flat and the centre of the universe? And why the dismissive sarcasm about what you claim is your own profession?

Come to "Stump the Shadowmaster" and shoot off your mouth over there.

Uhh,

No?

You can come over here and snipe but when one of us responds we must go to your thread to do so?

Nah

Originally posted by shadowmaster

Come to "Stump the Shadowmaster" and shoot off your mouth over there.

NO! Typical SM evasion, as always! Answer the questions: “How much was understood about the universe, during the thousands of years which preceded the introduction of the scientific method a mere 500 years ago...when the earth was flat and the centre of the universe? And why the dismissive sarcasm about what you claim is your own profession?

Originally posted by shadowmaster

snipped all the lecture about how science works.

See attachment.

So predictable! The decision to drop the atomic bomb was opposed by many scientists and was a decision of government not scientists in any event. But, it would take a lot to outweigh the benefits of science in such areas as the developing of medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, and orthopedic and other surgery...and the advancement of agriculture and farming techniques, farm equipment and animal husbandry etc, etc. Not to mention nuclear power, all electronic devices like computers, cell phones TV and scientific theories such as Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Evolution which greatly advance the body of knowledge and allow for prediction to further advance knowledge. So, overall, science has enabled enormous advances of our civilization. What did religion do in the 1,500 years before the development of modern science?

Tassy, there you go again. You know nothing about science but are trying to tell others how it works. Do you not realize that you should first get educated?

Any well educated person knows the basic principles of science and the scientific method just as any well educated person has studied philosophy and is aware of the different philosophical positions. Your constant ‘catch-cry’ of “I know science and you don’t”, in lieu of answers, is very thin and is an obvious escape mechanism. It reveals your inability to deal with, among other issues, such a basic stance as the naturalistic world view verses dualism. It fools no-one.

Originally posted by Tassman

So predictable! The decision to drop the atomic bomb was opposed by many scientists and was a decision of government not scientists in any event. But, it would take a lot to outweigh the benefits of science in such areas as the developing of medicines, antibiotics, medical procedures, medical knowledge, and orthopedic and other surgery...and the advancement of agriculture and farming techniques, farm equipment and animal husbandry etc, etc. Not to mention nuclear power, all electronic devices like computers, cell phones TV and scientific theories such as Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity and Evolution which greatly advance the body of knowledge and allow for prediction to further advance knowledge. So, overall, science has enabled enormous advances of our civilization. What did religion do in the 1,500 years before the development of modern science?

That shows how naive you are,
The government(s) paid for the bomb and scientists (including your beloved Feynman) did it.
Scientists did it -- they developed it.
Without the scientists it would have been impossible.
The history of war is how the scientists of that age developed new and better weapons.
They are still at it and you are too dense to observe it..

Any well educated person knows the basic principles of science and the scientific method just as any well educated person has studied philosophy and is aware of the different philosophical positions. Your constant ‘catch-cry’ of “I know science and you don’t”, in lieu of answers, is very thin and is an obvious escape mechanism. It reveals your inability to deal with, among other issues, such a basic stance as the naturalistic world view verses dualism. It fools no-one.

First of all, you do not appear to be well educated.

But then cite those basic principles and show how they applied to the atomic bomb

What religion did was to oppose weapons like the bomb.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Uhh,

No?

You can come over here and snipe but when one of us responds we must go to your thread to do so?

Nah

I wasn't talking to you.
You are just a troll who already derailed the intent of this thread.
I know that you are a coward but Tassman may decide to man it up and do so.
Even one of his former goons did and we were polite and professional towards each other.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Yep,

My hope is that with enough information we can work to get as many soft sciences to be more like hard sciences. For the sciences that are exercises in historical inference, we are never (sans time machines) going to have 100% of a record of the past of course. For sociology and other sciences of human interaction and the inward self, I've felt that its out lack of a complete understanding of the brain that is holding them back from being hard sciences.

And you openly accept that your position is one of faith (supported with experience, but still faith), rather . I respect that.

I can see why someone would make the case for it. However, when dealing with the supernatural or religious claims, as is often the case on a forum that is, well, dedicated to the it, we can see how repeatability is trumped by personal experience when we have conflicting personal experience. We currently have no way for two people who make argument purely from personal experience to do much more than talk at each other, no?

Yes and no. Does "religious" experience lend itself to scientific experimentation? Not readily. However, the truth of personal experience can be tested. The likelihood of their experience is a factor, but it is not the only factor. Is the person trustworthy? Does the person's story have the "ring" of truth (i.e. does the person believe what they are telling you)? Do you know enough to claim that the experience impossible or merely unlikely and inexplicable?

Aside: It seems that those people who deny God the most make a strong appeal to science. However, when pressed, they say, essentially, "I'll believe it when I see it." This is not a request for scientifically testable data; it is a request for personal experience... the same kind that they vehemently deny as having relevance. NOTE: I am not putting anyone in this thread specifically in this category, but I have met people that are this way.

Of course personal experience is more useful for beauty or love or whatnot. When it comes to explaining the world around us, personal experience must cede to science though, no?

I don't disagree that science seems to be effective at telling us how nature works. However, that's not really relevant to our discussion of paradigms.

I remember something about, I believe it was Thomas Edison, who was asked if he was bothered about failing to create a lightbulb, and his reply was "We now know a thousand ways not to build a light bulb"

Your statement seems to be equating any given statement of fact as being an "item" of knowledge, when the increased precision of knowledge is another valid way to describe our advances. Sure, the various physics theories of the last couple hundred years tend to replace each other, but each time we were able to shift over to a more precise system that we could do more with. It'd be like arguing that you didn't get a better gas mileage on your new car, you just replaced your old gas mileage. Does that make sense?

Yes, and I don't think Kuhn would disagree that each paradigm is better than the last. In fact, I like that you used precision because that is a better word, IMHO, than "better."

*sigh*

I was afraid that I wouldn't cover it very succinctly. I was right. I am not trying to use this as a source, but the wiki articles on paradigms and paradigm shift are pretty accurate. The first one or two paragraphs of each pretty much cover what I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to relate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

I know that argumentation by wiki is bad form, but this really does a better job of explaining the core concepts than I have.