I am trying to level the playing firelds not elite either of them.
Besides to caim there is no philosophy on empiracle science is just false. Empiricalism is a philosophy. And any conclusion will bow to that philosophy…It is not about lyng or deliberate falsehood, it is just the notion that there is no argument to those conclusions.from a diffeerent philosophical perspective, because no other perspective is “allowed”
Richard
Richard, with all due respect, get thee to a laboratory.
Of course I’m separating science from philosophy! The tendency of people to conflate science with philosophy is the whole reason why discussions about science and faith go off the rails. You end up with endless waffle about assumptions, presuppositions, worldviews, methodological naturalism, Karl Popper, and so on and so forth, coming from people who seem to have little or no awareness of the fact that science is done in laboratories and out in the field, that it starts off with studying evidence, or that most people encounter it first and foremost through having to put its principles and its findings into practice in order to do their jobs.
Several years ago at a previous job, I worked with a junior software developer—a recent physics graduate—who turned up on his first day with a copy of Gödel, Escher, Bach in his bag. He seemed pretty smart and he enjoyed all the philosophical stuff, but he didn’t even turn up to our daily stand-ups and he checked in a change that removed a whole lot of important code for no apparent reason whatsoever. He lasted about three weeks before he was let go.
Been ther, done that,. Ithink it is rude of you t think that I haven’t.
You have a view. You emphasise what you can see, measure or observde. You choose the data you want to assess or include and accuse others of lying if they do not value it the same as you do.
Big deal! Is a minister not a valid job?
Is buying and selling a valid job? It involves assessment, and honesty and valuation and, to a greater or esser extent understanding people.
Stop playnig the Job card. We are not talking about people’s jobs or practical, industrial or aplplication scince…
I repeat
You are claiming that the empiracle view is the only valid view.
In your environment it might be, but here? No it is not.
Get off your high horse.
Every scientific theory was “conjured up” (thought up) by a human using their brain. As such they are all subjective to the methodology of sciencde.
You assess the data. In doing so you are using your brain and your philosophy of empiracalism.
If someone else decisde that there are other factors, or vairable or data that can be included? You call them liars or unscientific. Unscientific? What right have you to dictate how I see the world or assess data!
Richard
If you don’t want me to think that you haven’t, then make sure your responses reflect the fact that you have.
I have hands-on experience. I learned to take science seriously the hard way, by having to face the consequences of not doing so.
I didn’t say or even imply that it wasn’t. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Of course a minister is a valid job. But it is not a STEM-based job. And ministers do need to remember that they are ministering to people in STEM-based jobs.
No I will not stop playing the job card for the simple reason that that is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to science. As I said, that is where I learned the hard way of the need to take science seriously and not to get sidetracked onto philosophy.
No I am not. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Would you say something like that to someone who was interviewing you for a STEM-based job?
That’s like saying the rules of baseball are too limiting because they don’t allow you to play tennis. Of course, we can choose to play any sport we want, but while we are playing that sport we agree to those rules. I think the same applies here. If you claim to be using a secular approach then it needs to be neutral. If it is a polemic against religion or apologetics in support of a religion then it isn’t secular. That isn’t to say that these other approaches are wrong, only that they aren’t secular.
If there is a lack of objective evidence one way or another, then the secular approach would leave it as an open question. To use a different example, my understanding is that the objective evidence against the Exodus described in the Bible has grown to such a level that most neutral academics now think it didn’t happen, at least the way it is described in the Bible. There are many believers who lean the same way. The same would of course apply to the age of the Earth or the position of the Earth, Sun, and Moon in the solar system.
Of course, this would apply to all religious beliefs throughout history. It applies as much to Christianity as it does Hinduism, Islam, or belief in Baal.
A natural explanation would be the null hypothesis if you are testing for a supernatural miracle, at least in my estimation. If this is a scientific test, then you would need an experimental design that would be able to detect a natural process if it exists. With that said, I’m not sure how you would define a positive test for a supernatural process in a scientific manner. A God of the Gaps approach is always going to fall short, so “can’t be immediately explained by natural causes” isn’t going to be sufficient in a scientific setting. If there is no positive evidence for any process, then the correct conclusion is “I don’t know”, at least scientifically.
I also tend to flash back to the JREF Million Dollar Prize in these discussions. The James Randi Foundation offered 1 million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate the supernatural or paranormal under controlled conditions. The only people I am aware of that took part in serious tests were dowsers. Turns out, they were no better at finding water or lost objects than a random search, so they didn’t claim the prize. At some point, there needs to be some skin in the game. It isn’t enough to gripe that people are discounting the supernatural out of hand. At some point, it needs to be demonstrated, if it can. If the supernatural can’t be demonstrated scientifically, then science can hardly be blamed for not considering it.
Science is not about leveling the playing field. In fact, just the opposite. In science, you need empirical evidence. Something made up on the spot is not given the same consideration as a conclusion based on mountains of empirical evidence. I think this is a good policy. Apparently, you don’t.
People can base their conclusions on anything they want. However, if they want to claim it is a scientific conclusion then it needs empirical evidence. Why is that a problem?
But not in a stem based environment. As you said,I am not in a labratory so the rules there do not apply here
No, but I am not am I?
You are not in a labratory here. You are in the outside world where other factors apply.
Perhaps you should “listen” to yourself… I hear you
We are not doing science here. We may be discussing science but in the outside world where science does not dictate.
I reeat we are not in a labratory. The rules there do not apply here. Why are you insisting that I obey them?
Now read, before you give a knee jerk response (retalliate)
This si not about science in the work place. Thsi is not about the value of science (or philosophy) This is not a competition. Your attitude is what fuels the Genesis v science argument (it is not a debate).
Science has rules? wow, That is a surprise! (Flag irony)
Guess what, so does philosophy, theology, History, and every walk of life. Each has their own place, and each much be ablr to live outside that place.
We all know that the elephant in the room is Evolution, but Creation is not the sole property of scinece, not does science dictate how everyone must view it. You have spent too long arguing with Biblicalfanatics. I am not one. However, I give Scripture some value.
Faith is almost the antipathy of Science, but it still accesses the same data you have. The coonclusions I draw do not match yours. That doe not mean I am lying, or being ignorant, or even that I do not understand the science. It means that i am not a scientist who must use the scientific method at all times. Outside of your lab, science does not reign suoreme, and neither does the scientific method.
That is not respectful it is an insult.
If I am n a scientific environment I will obey their “rules”. I am not, and neither are you. Yiou are in my world, so I will ask you to repsect “my” rules.
Richard
Oh, I surely hope so.
Hmmm.
Lets restore some of the omitted context:
They are valid jobs. They are not jobs which require anyone to put the principles and findings of science into practice. So they aren’t relevant to @jammycakes’s comment, and including more of his text would have made that clear…
Quote-mining is dishonest.
But they are relevant to my context and establishing the context in which this discussion is taking place. I am not “quote mining” Each quote is taken within context of the converstation.
Nice try. Failed!
Richard
Richard, yer heid’s full o’mince.
The rules of science apply in every environment. Gravity, quantum mechanics and metabolism work in exactly the same way in the lab as they do in church.
The only difference between church and STEM-based workplaces is that the consequences of disregarding the rules are more immediate, more noticeable, more personal, and more severe.
Now where have I heard something like that before? Oh yes, here:
Once again, yer heid’s full o’mince, laddie.
The whole world we live in is a scientific environment. We may not be performing actual experiments, but science still provides a fairly comprehensive description of how we, and the things that we interact with, work, and an equally comprehensive guide to what we can and cannot get away with.
Are you one of the moderators of this forum now? That’s news to me.
Science does not dictate anywhere, including the laboratory. Science does not tell nature what it should be, nature tells science what it is. And nature is always with and within, wherever you go in the outside world.
Oh forget it!
if that is your level of arguing, it is just not worth my efforts
Richard
So do you think the views of Flat Earthers are just as valid as those who conclude the Earth is a globe? If not, why not?
If a Flat Earther said you just see the evidence you want to see for a globe Earth, what would be your response?
Really?
Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469
Like you know who Smithsonian are right? Smithsonian (magazine) - Wikipedia
The Piltdown Man Hoax
This fortuitous find – nine pieces of a large-brained human skull and an ape-like lower jaw with two teeth – was readily accepted by the British establishment due to their belief that a large brain was one of the first human features to evolve. 1912 - Piltdown Man ‘discovered’ in England. - The Australian Museum
Do you actually think about and research the stuff you write here or just make these rebuttals up as you go along?
YEC doctrines are not made up for convenience, they are derived directly from biblical theology, history and science…the three are harmonious.
how can nature tell science anything? Science isnt intelligent.
I think you are treating science like its some kind of intelligent entity.
My belief is that man interpretes the evidence gleaned from using the tool called science.
Whether or not you are willing to accept it, that interpretation has biases…just because an individual has other evidences that support particular conclusions, it does not mean those conclusions are right…it just means that they are consistent with the existing presuppositions/biases the individual has. Also, the number of individuals isnt relevant either…that is simply a mathematical game of scaling (such as the atheist big bang dilemma - where did the energy and matter come from in the first place and “what poked it” to start the Big Bang)
is that so…
please entertain me with an answers to the following…i mean,how do these things get explained scientifically in church:
By observation and experiment. It is blindingly obvious that nature does not obey our wishes or conform to our preferences.
God gave us an orderly universe of principles, ratios, and laws.
Science exists to counter biases. While scientific conclusions are always subject to testing and deeper understanding, false ideas like a global flood can be definitively eliminated.
The miracles you list are irrelevant to gravity, quantum mechanics and metabolism, which as stated all work the same in church as the lab. If you are skeptical, next time you attend drop a weight in the sanctuary, and you will indeed find the acceleration matches.
This has already been explained to you, Adam. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Soft tissue remnants are not soft tissue.
Decay products of unstable biomolecules are not unstable biomolecules.
Surprise is not a substitute for measurement.
Conventional wisdom is not a substitute for measurement either.
This has also been explained to you, Adam. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Isolated instances of fraud from a century ago are NOT evidence for ubiquitous and systematic deception across millions of studies right up the present day.
Seriously, if ye cannae understand these basic facts, ye must hae mince in yer heid.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.