Is science scientific?!

[reggieM]

Not exactly. Science consists not only of physical science (physics, chemistry) but also natural–and earth–science (biology, geology), social science (psychology, sociology, anthropology, history), and political science, including economics.

It’s a matter of defining terminology and that can change for various reasons. Mathematics, philosophy and theology can all be called science if history is considered a science.

Historical events cannot be actually observed and tested.

 

[reggieM]

All faith is blind - that’s the definition of faith. You either believe something based on evidence or you do not. Science accounts for evidence, does it not? Science is the only way that we know something. Give an example of something we know that is not scientific…

I hope you have read the past few posts including #54. That should help you quite a lot.

Honest questions are great – it’s also very important to have honesty when being corrected, as Filthy Tugboat showed very well here.

It takes some courage, but there’s nothing to be embarrassed about. We all have to learn from one another.

I will say, though, that you’re opinion is very seriously and wildly incorrect – and that has a huge impact on your belief system.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi Filthy Tugboat. ((I hope this spelling is correct))

I just had to look this up: Ignosticism. Is the following close to your views???

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word “ignosticism” was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

…Curt…

 

[Warrior1979]

“Science” at its most fundamental level is the only thing that we have to make sense of the world we live in. It is simply objective observation of specific events, from which we form general principles to apply to similar situations in the future. For example, when you look in the sky and see dark clouds forming, you predict that it is going to rain based on your past experiences of that situation. THAT is science. Modern science is just the disciplined development of objective observation coupled with the use of mathematical models.

This post sums it up rather nicely.

That’s all it is, a way of explaining the world around us. The theories are modified over time as our understanding advances.

 

[Warrior1979]

Not from earthly science, that’s for sure. Technology comes from an upper-world we are unaware of. We must give God credit for all technology. Again, science is a sham.

In the secular sense, science simply is our best attempt to explain the world around us. In a religious sense, it is our best attempt to explain God’s creation.

Explaining reality is not a sham. What typically upsets people is when a theory is proposed that may conflict with one’s preconceived notion. People don’t like discomfort, and this discomfort is limited to science.

 

[honestquestions]

1. All our knowledge is based on the evidence of our interior experiences.

I think I understand what you are saying here. I believe that Australia exists despite not having been there myself. Does this comply with your statement?

1. **Our primary data **are our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions.

What you just stated sounds subjective. Aging a tree based on its rings and carbon dating is objective.

1. We infer the existence of material things from the evidence of our perceptions.

Would there be any other reasonable way?

1. Science presupposes our power of reason which is intangible and unobservable by the senses.

Would there be any other reasonable way?

1. The belief that science is the only way that we know something is obviously false.

Give an example of something you know that is not scientific. When I ask why you know it, what method could you confirm it?

1. Scientific knowledge is based on our direct, immediate knowledge of ourselves.

Do you have a better method? How would you make your argument convincing?

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Filthy Tugboat. ((I hope this spelling is correct))

I just had to look this up: Ignosticism. Is the following close to your views???

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word “ignosticism” was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

…Curt…

Perhaps one of us should start a thread about ignosticism and what others think of it (defining it of course, for otherwise only people who read this will participate). It appears to contain echoes of Skepticism.

 

[TheAtheist]

In the secular sense, science simply is our best attempt to explain the world around us. In a religious sense, it is our best attempt to explain God’s creation.

Explaining reality is not a sham. What typically upsets people is when a theory is proposed that may conflict with one’s preconceived notion. People don’t like discomfort, and this discomfort is limited to science.

: clap clap clap:

I’d make a distinction however - for the committed empiricist there is no discomfort. The drive is toward discovery - regardless of what the outcome might entail. Granted of course, even that personality type is rare amongst scientists…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes but the design argument is unfalsifiable which immediately makes it ‘not science’.

The Design argument is falsifiable in principle because, to give just one example, the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents could conceivably increase to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds!

 

[tonyrey]

In the secular sense, science simply is our best attempt to explain the world around us. In a religious sense, it is our best attempt to explain God’s creation.

Explaining reality is not a sham. What typically upsets people is when a theory is proposed that may conflict with one’s preconceived notion. People don’t like discomfort, and this discomfort is limited to science.

The scientific Establishment is notorious for its frequently scandalous rejection of new theories which conflict with currently fashionable theories based on the prevailing doctrine of physicalism. Any theory which throws doubt on NeoDarwinism is immediately suspect…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The Design argument is falsifiable in principle because, to give just one example, the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents could conceivably increase to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds!

What? In any case that wouldn’t falsify the design argument because you could still say that a designer made this happen. Somebody somewhere can match every event to a God’s intention because there is no evidence of a designer or a creator and no strict guideline to base it’s character and attributes on. It could be malevolent, it could be loving, it could promote free will as a priority, it could be a sadist. Absolutely anything that could ever happen could not falsify the design argument.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hi Filthy Tugboat. ((I hope this spelling is correct))

I just had to look this up: Ignosticism. Is the following close to your views???

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word “ignosticism” was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by ‘God’?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless.
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

…Curt…

Yes, close, I generally describe it as, “I don’t know what people mean when they say God.” Or my preferred phrasing. You say, “God,” I say, “What?”

And to be honest I don’t, I haven’t come across anyone who shares the exact same view of God as anybody else, our own perception being different makes the resulting belief different even if only marginally but on top of that, everybodies view of God could be wrong, there could be none or their could be one nobody has thought of.

 

[tonyrey]

The Design argument is falsifiable in principle because, to give just one example, the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents could conceivably increase to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds!

You would need to justify that speculation because there is no evidence in its favour and no obvious motive for doing so.

Somebody somewhere can match every event to a God’s intention because there is no evidence of a designer or a creator and no strict guideline to base its character and attributes on. It could be malevolent, it could be loving, it could promote free will as a priority, it could be a sadist. Absolutely anything that could ever happen could not falsify the design argument.

Your blanket assertion is falsified by the immense value of existence…

You also need to explain how you are capable of reaching that conclusion. Where do you obtain your power of reason? From inanimate particles?

 

[tonyrey]

And to be honest I don’t, I haven’t come across anyone who shares the exact same view of God as anybody else, our own perception being different makes the resulting belief different even if only marginally but on top of that, everybodies view of God could be wrong, there could be none or their could be one nobody has thought of.

Disagreement does not demonstrate that everyone is mistaken!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You would need to justify that speculation because there is no evidence in its favour and no obvious motive for doing so.

What assertion? The lack of evidence of God? I have never come across any, only blanket assertions and people claiming a personal relationship, but the problem is, similar people say the same thing while talking about completely different Gods, both inside and outside of their religion. What method is there for verifying these claims? The rest of it are claims that ancient documents whose authenticity is questionable at best are evidence of Gods existence and I have no method for differentiating which religious promotional text is correct.

Your blanket assertion is falsified by the immense value of existence…

Why is existence valuable? Are you suggesting this from your own subjective point of view or do you have some kind of evidence to support this assertion? On top of that, presuming that existence is valuable why is it ‘immensely valuable’?

You also need to explain how you are capable of reaching that conclusion. Where do you obtain your power of reason? From inanimate particles?

Most probably. I have certainly never come across anything to suggest that anything beyond inanimate particles exists.

I reasoned myself into this position by the fact that people do claim that all events that have and will occur are attributed to their specific God, people who are referring to different Gods say this and honestly, I don’t know any way to verify these claims.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Disagreement does not demonstrate that everyone is mistaken!

I never suggested that it was, I even gave other options including the one that they were right, or that they were wrong and some other God is real, a God nobody has ever thought of.

 

[reggieM]

Why is existence valuable? Are you suggesting this from your own subjective point of view or do you have some kind of evidence to support this assertion? On top of that, presuming that existence is valuable why is it ‘immensely valuable’?

The word “valuable” refers to existence – it requires existence before all else.

Existence is immensely valuable because it makes the concept of value possible.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The word “valuable” refers to existence – it requires existence before all else.

Existence is immensely valuable because it makes the concept of value possible.

Value is entirely subjective, what is valuable to me may not be valuable to you and it is determined by the perspective or the construct that is using it. Due to the subjective nature of it, we can not objectively claim anything is universally valuable or not. So similar to science existence is a must for value to be taken into account, this seems less like existence being valuable and more like value is a property of existence.

I mentioned construct before because we can look at value objectively by inserting a goal, say, for this animals survival food and water will be very valuable. I’m confident that this is the most objective any claim of value can be.

 

[reggieM]

Value is entirely subjective, what is valuable to me may not be valuable to you and it is determined by the perspective or the construct that is using it. Due to the subjective nature of it, we can not objectively claim anything is universally valuable or not.

There has to be existence for value to have any meaning. Existence has an extremely high degree of this quality we call “value”.

That is an objective measure. We cannot even talk about the term “value” without existence – so universally, existence has value.

So similar to science existence is a must for value to be taken into account, this seems less like existence being valuable and more like value is a property of existence.

I think that’s right. Existence is a must in order to have any value. So, it would also be true to say that we couldn’t talk about “value” if there was no existence. But we use this term “value” to refer to existence.

I mentioned construct before because we can look at value objectively by inserting a goal, say, for this animals survival food and water will be very valuable. I’m confident that this is the most objective any claim of value can be.

You’ve determined the goal – which is survival for the animals. Food and water are valuable so that the animals can fulfill your goal for them.

The highest good and greatest value is Being (existence) in itself.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

There has to be existence for value to have any meaning. Existence has an extremely high degree of this quality we call “value”.

Not universally only in the construct of ‘being capable of evaluation’.

Only under the objective of being capable of ‘valuing’ something. You have introduced an objective and created a construct for existence to have value, without that construct why does existence have value?

I would change that to “we use the term value to refer to things that exist”. And this statement is introducing the subjective nature of value, by saying, “we use this term.”

I did.

Why? I don’t know how you reached this conclusion. The whole of this response is that existence is valuable because without existence nothing could be valued. This in itself is a construct which has introduced the objective of ‘being capable of valuing’. If that is the objective then the statement “existence is valuable” appears to only be true if we consider the capabilities of evaluation to be valuable. Is there a universal reason as to why existence is valuable or did you already post it and I misread? I am known to miss things so sorry in advance if I misrepresented your post.