He didn’t say “consensus” or “science.” He said “evidence.”
Saying that you don’t have to provide evidence is demanding the right to make stuff up. Especially when you’re trying to challenge something that is based on evidence itself.
2 Likes
I do respect you as a person @RichardG . However, ideas are separate from people. I can disagree with someone’s ideas while still respecting them. What I hope you take away from all of this is that we argue over ideas without needing to tear each other down.
I agree that you don’t have to accept anything science says. The problem is that you are flummoxed as to why we don’t find your ideas very compelling. We are trying to help you understand why we aren’t impressed by your ideas. You are essentially saying that you don’t want to learn anything, make up whatever you want, and then expect us to treat these ideas the same as ideas backed by a century and a half of evidence. If nothing else, I am hoping you can understand where we are coming from.
2 Likes
No ot is not.
You are claiming that science provides an uncontestable truth. It does not.
Even if you claim a scientific fact that does not make it universal fact
Did you not understand this? Obviusly not.
It has nothng to do with “,making stuff up”. It is about science not dictating reality. ust because science says does not make it so. And, just because science cannot see or identify does not mean it does not exist. And just because an argument is made philosophically does not make it invalid or made up.
Science does not rule! Scinece does not dictate what is a fact. Science is only one viewpoint.
Science is not God
Richard
No I am not. I know perfectly well why you do not accept my viewpoint. I ma less sure that you understand mine.
It is all about “evidence” and what evidence you consider valid or worth your attention.
Yi have tunnel viision. You only see the scientific viewpoint and get aggressive whan some one dares to disagree, quickly followed by defensive of science as a genre or career. Neither of whihc is relevant and givesothers the perception of arognace or dominance. You are imposing your viewpoint as being the only valid one and claiming “Truth”.
Whether you like it or not Science can only make "the best guess, or “conclusion” it cannot make certainty. No matter how certain you are.
Richard
Evidence is a set of objective facts that can be observed by anyone. How are you defining evidence?
It’s about facts, not viewpoints.
I am pointing to observable facts.
I completely agree. Science can never prove anything in an absolute sense. I’m just fine with that. What science doesn’t do is make stuff up and ignore facts.
2 Likes
Precisely what iI said. You do not consider anyo other way of assising or defining evidence or daqta other thaqn
Scientific observqtion. Scientific analysis, Scientific understnding. You can only see science.
ANything you cannot see does not exist? Ot os not relevant?
(Is made up?)
Richqrd
Do you think evidence is anything anyone can make up on the spot?
I can only see reality. Observable facts are a part of reality.
If you want to understand why your ideas are not compelling, your rejection of facts is one of the top reasons.
2 Likes
Yes it is. Re-read the paragraph that I wrote immediately before the one you quote mined.
No I am not.
Demanding evidence is not “claiming that science provides an uncontestable truth.” There is a difference, you know.
2 Likes
Yes it is, because you demand a specific type of evidence. You demand something you can observe,clarify, or assess, even if ti does not, or cannot exist.
And yet you also clam over such things as ancient Histpry or distant galaxies or things that you can only measure the effedt of, or as in ToE soemthing tht hppened billions of years ago. Because you claim that what little you can observe now is enough to tell you what happened before and that is assumption, presumption or extrapolation, nonr of which are based soley on facts or observtion. You cannot obser ancient evolution, and you cannot deterine why a deviation occurs, or even how much effect a dieviation makes.
Yet you still claim it as incintroversial fact.
Why do you not see this as fallacy?
A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument invalid or unsound.
(Your reasoning bein you saw something and deduced from what you saw)
Because that is accusing you of fraud or ineotitude? No it isn’t. It is just pragmatism and reality. Science is not perfect, nor can it dictate or insist on anything. Regardless of how sure or careful or whatever, you are still using a secific method to get that conclusion. And it is not the only methd od-assessing anything, including the data you have.
It is not making up stuff, it is viewing the same information from a different perspective and possibly includiing information that scienece does not identify or value. That does not make me wrong!
Richard
OK one last try.
If Hitler had suceeded in hi endeavours to make a master race would that be a valid methd for evoltution? It would be might is right. His power killing any oponants or rivals or competitors.
How would science address this?
Would it change anything in ToE?
Richard
There is no method for evolution just as there is no method for germ theory or relativity. Scientific theories describe what happens in nature, they don’t prescribe what we should do. Germ theory no more says we should cure diseases than we should develop bioweapons to wipe out humanity. It is the classic Is/Ought problem described by Hume.
3 Likes
Then it would seem you think evidence can be something someone makes up at the drop of a hat. You can use that criteria if you want, but most of us are a bit more demanding.
Since you think the best evidence is just stuff people make up, not sure why you are complaining about quantities of evidence. We can just make a bunch of stuff up, if you want.
And yet, when it comes to your own mortal health, you will rely on scientific findings. You rely on science all of the time, but for whatever reason you think science is completely inept when it comes to a subject that you don’t want challenged.
2 Likes
I’m sorry Richard, but I don’t see how I can engage in a meaningful discussion if every time I say something you respond by claiming that I am saying something completely different.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
2 Likes
Sure, you sit in your corner and make up fairy tales – that’s what you’re defending.
It’s the sort of thing that makes many rational people regard Christianity as make-believe.
Exactly.
But apparently he thinks that it would be valid to challenge the validity of a pie recipe based on a crayon drawing he made of one.
Or he is doing a very very bad job of communicating.
Richard, you should read God’s Undertaker by Lennox – it’s a bit dated, but it may help clarify some of your ideas.
1 Like
When the topic is science, of course. It’s no different than not paying attention to a book on Renaissance art when discussing repairing a steam locomotive.
No, you’re claiming that, but if you actually read what is written it isn’t the case.
Yes – and it uses evidence to do that, not ideas from some philosophy daydream.
Subjectively, as far as I can tell.
Yes. A table of data points allows no viewpoints; they are what they are. What curve may fit those data points may involve viewpoint, but there are mathematical tools involved, not just opinion.
That is a very sound theological statement except for very rare exceptions: we do not have senses that show us other than the ‘physical’ universe.
1 Like
That is the definition of evidence when it comes to science – so if you want to talk about science, that’s what you use.
If God is faithful, yes we can, by observing what causes deviation today.
A “valid method for evolution” is whatever happens. Period.
Why should it? Indeed how could it? It would just be an additional data set.
1 Like
I am not putting words into your mouth I am telling you what I hear and understand. If I am wrong there has been a breakdown in communication.
I do not cry foul every time you get the wrong end of the stick, and that happens quite a lot
No one likes to be called a liar or that they make things up.
Richard
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.