Criticism of Modern Science

[Rocinante]

As long as science is done by human beings it is subject to corruption, and misuse.

what is your point? you could say this about everything. this is obviously true about religion as well.

 

[Rocinante]

If this is your best source for defining science, you are certainly not well read on the subject.

my best source? why the hostility charlemagne. i never claimed any best source. my point all along has been “check any dictionary.”

i’m talking about the ordinary usage of an ordinary word. feel free to use the word how ever you want. but i defend my usage on the grounds that that is how the word is defined in any dictionary.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante;7207619:

Well, I guess I just have to quote Humpty Dumpty’s remark to Alice: “When I use a word it means exactly what I choose it to mean.”

that is obviously not what i said. what i said was when i use he word science i mean what any dictionary says it means.

By the way, Fr. Jaki, in his book, gives examples of how words are unscientific, amorphous and cloudlike things, the definitions of which change with time.

right. the meaning of a word is its usage.

Here’s a quote from your initial post on about the scientific efficacy of the power of prayer.
"an (sic) well-endowed organization called the Templeton Foundation gives grants to scientists who are willing to say something nice about religion. "
I would term that provocative, anti-religious and entirely misleading, particularly since I know something about the Templeton foundation, the projects, scientists and philosophers it has supported.

i think i was much more respectful in pointing out the bias of the templeton foundation than you were about the new your times (what you termed the new your slime).

I will not try to engage with you again in this forum, but I respectfully urge you please to quit disparaging the rationality of those of us here who are believers (as in your remarks about me in a previous post–you disparage not only me, but Fr. Jaki, an eminent philosopher, historian of science, and Templeton prize winner, with whose views I concur.).

unless you can get over yourself i agree that the best thing you could do is put me on your ignore list considering that you take any disagreement with your assertions as disparaging the rationality of you, Fr Jaki, and all believers everywhere.

 

[Rocinante]

Without free will we wouldn’t be responsible for any of our thoughts or actions.

whether or not that is true is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we have free will.

There is a difference between “is” and “ought”. Science is concerned with what occurs, not with whether it should occur.

there is a difference between is and ought but science is very concerned with oughts.this is a big topic for another thread.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*my best source? why the hostility charlemagne. i never claimed any best source. my point all along has been “check any dictionary.”
*

Just pointing out there a whole lot left out in the dictionary definition. Even Wikipedia can outdo Merriam-Webster, unreliable as it sometimes is, and probably would open up several other more interesting dimensions to the word “science.”

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

*my best source? why the hostility charlemagne. i never claimed any best source. my point all along has been “check any dictionary.”
*

Just pointing out there a whole lot left out in the dictionary definition. Even Wikipedia can outdo Merriam-Webster, unreliable as it sometimes is, and probably would open up several other more interesting dimensions to the word “science.”

certainly science is an ordinary word that is quite common in the english language. it is used in more broad and more narrow senses. in the broadest sense it applies to any rational inquiry where we try to get consensus among inquirers. anselm wants to insist on a far more narrow definition of the word which only apply to physics. he is welcome to use the word how ever he wants (why not just say physics when he means physics?), but he doesn’t get to impose his definition on everyone else.

rocinante

 

[NE_Catholic]

certainly science is an ordinary word that is quite common in the english language. it is used in more broad and more narrow senses. in the broadest sense it applies to any rational inquiry where we try to get consensus among inquirers. anselm wants to insist on a far more narrow definition of the word which only apply to physics. he is welcome to use the word how ever he wants (why not just say physics when he means physics?), but he doesn’t get to impose his definition on everyone else.

rocinante

I have to go with Anselm on this. “Science” as a word is pretty over used now-a-days. And what is considered by some to be “science” is just shockingly silly. Even my beloved baseball has been taken over by “science”.

 

[Rocinante]

I have to go with Anselm on this. “Science” as a word is pretty over used now-a-days. And what is considered by some to be “science” is just shockingly silly. Even my beloved baseball has been taken over by “science”.

what gets excluded from science can also be very silly. for example, liberal intellectual moral relativists often pretend that we just don’t know enough about psychology, biology, sociology, and the conditions that facilitate and frustrate human flourishing to know that ritual female genital mutilation is wrong or that it isn’t good to force your women to walk around in cloth bags or that it is wrong to throw acid in the faces of girls who try to go to school.

is it is the absurd idea that we can only claim scientific knowledge–that we can only *really *know anything beyond controversy–if we can express it in terms of deterministic equations that results in the moral relativism we have today. that is why i object stridently to anselm’s attempt to enforce a view of scientific knowledge as only being physics and everything else is just subjective personal preference.

rocinante

 

[Geremia]

Has anyone here read Husserl’s The Crisis of the European Sciences?