W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Why would it need to prove that it’s the ONLY way? It WORKS and that’s what matters.And yet science can’t even prove that it’s the only way.
Moving the goal-posts are we?
- Status
Moving the goal-posts are we?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And yet here you are using…
philosophy.
So even you don’t believe in what you are proposing.
Science Alone is as ridiculous as saying that we need to use toothbrushes alone to clean our cars.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
It’s called logic actually.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep.
Did you forget already the post where I showed you that logic classes are taught in…
the Philosophy Dept
at universities?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Translation: “less…restrictive” meaning “less restrictive regarding the application of sound logic,” i.e., more susceptible to persuasion.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
I wonder… what do you mean when you use the term: “scientific method”?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your ad hominem is followed by an unsubstantiated assertion, neither of which constitute a rational response to the OP…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you make **all **your choices and decisions **solely **on the basis of scientific theories? If not why not?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I will take the liberty of answering, based on my faith and reason, that he does not.
If he drives over a bridge but has not checked to verify that the engineer who designed that bridge actually passed her exams, then he is using FAITH each and every time he drives over that bridge.
And, as I said, I am using my faith and reason to assert that he has never, not even once, asked the city govt for records for the engineer’s qualifications.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Oh, yeah, there’s lots of persuasion by ‘likemindedness’ of the ‘rationally enlightened ones’ in the atheistic echo chambers…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Indeed. My first question is rhetorical. The second is a “reductio ad ignorantium”.
It is unscientific to imply that only science works…
T
tonyrey
Guest
God is beyond the scope of science but science points to omnipotence.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It would be fine, if that is what science claims as its end task - to merely figure out what works, physically speaking.
However, if that is its self-imposed “restriction” then science needs to stop making truth claims; for example, the claim that it explains anything or that it is a means to knowing the truth.
On this forum we don’t believe searching for truth ought to be restricted in that sense.
Despite the fact that some denizens of the world of shallow thinking show up now and then AND insist THAT must be the restriction under which science ought to be declared omniscient since it alone shows how things work.
We simply don’t agree that restrictions with regard to truth should be so arbitrarily applied merely for the sake of crowning some pursuit “king,” just so we can say there is one.
Now on less restrictive forums, you might find, paradoxically, that you will get away with restricting the pursuit of truth by imposing such a convenient and arbitrary restriction on what comprises truth, but you won’t get away with that here. We are restrictive in the sense that we restrict shallow thinking of that sort having sway because we believe that having such sway merely as a matter of fiat is a dogma that ought not be tolerated.
I am not sure what “moving the goalposts” has anything to do with the question because we never agreed that you have any absolute right to place them where you arbitrarily put them in the first place.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Okay, let me take another stab at this, just to check whether the goalposts stand in a determinably appropriate location.
An enthusiastic inventor comes dancing joyfully into the room declaring to all and sundry in trill shrills, “It works! It works! I have done it!” He claims to have successfully invented a hitherto unprecedented contrivance; proudly standing the device on the table before the astonished crowd.
Upon settling him down, the onlookers persuade the young genius to demonstrate what the contraption does. He turns it on and amid the whirling of gears, electronic beeping and general cacophony, the clever lad repeats his gleeful chant, “See, I told you! It works!”
As the noise of the machine subsides, the interested parties begin to inquire about the new invention.
“So what does it make?” one asks.
“Nothing, it just works and that’s all that matters!” responds the inventor. “My goal was to invent a machine that works. And this one does. Isn’t that great?”
“So, let me get this straight, you expect us to be impressed by the mere fact that this contraption works, even though it actually does nothing nor does it make anything of value to speak of?” retorts another observer.
“Well, now,” replies the inventor, “you are moving the goalposts. I didn’t claim the machine would make things, I merely said it would work.”
“Yes, but that, in itself, doesn’t make the machine worth building, now does it?”
Thinking quickly, the genius breathes out a sigh of relief. “You want to know the truth? It does make something, it makes noise!”
“Ah, yes, but does making a lot of noise thereby make the machine worth anything? The important question is whether the machine makes anything of value, is it not?”
“I value noise!” claims the inventor.
“Okay, but still, is noise valuable in itself?”
“There you go moving the goalposts again! I never tried to make anything that is valuable in itself. I was merely trying to do something that is of value to me. It really doesn’t matter to me what you or anyone else thinks is valuable, or what is valuable in itself. All that matters to me is that I value what it does. And I do!”
With that the young genius storms out of the room dragging his gadget of wonder behind him.
youtu.be/TxeIHcvPmtA
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Would this be an accurate description of your position: apart from something provable using science, there is nothing that we can be sure of?
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Less likely to be banned for dissenting opinions.
Atheist and evolution threads still banned I see.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No one is banned for posting dissenting opinions as far as atheism, belief/non-belief, science, evolution goes.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is equal opportunity banning as far as I can tell, since theists and those dissenting from “standard” views of evolution are likewise banned from expressing opposing opinions. It is unfair to view the bans as merely applying to “dissenting” opinions. The bans apply equally to those who OPPOSE atheism and evolution in the strict sense of those terms.
In fact, the bans could be viewed as a kind of expression of hospitality. Let’s not bring up directly confrontational issues when there are so many more things that could be talked about.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Meaning that posters are free to express dissenting opinions from an atheistic, scientistic or “evolution” point of view on any topic that comes up. The ban merely means that anyone, without prejudice, should refrain from discussing those specific topics (evolution, atheism) from any point of view.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
It’s sad that you actually buy into that.
That actually makes me think of an old Soviet joke I heard once.
“We have freedom of speech,” said the American, “I can come to the fence of the White House and say: ‘Down with Reagan, he is no good.’ The Soviet man replies: ‘It’s the same here. I can come to Red Square and say: ‘Down with Reagan, he is no good.’”
That kind of doublethink in real life is frightening.
- Status