What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Al_Moritz]

Here is a worthwhile interview with George Ellis, considered one of the leading theorists in cosmology. It deals with the scientific method, the relationship between science and philosophy, free will and a host of other issues:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/07/22/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-free-will/

 

[Hee_Zen]

So because neither cows nor humans can tell you what a cow actually is, you suppose a cow actually is nothing and asking, "What makes a cow a cow? is a ridiculous idea merely because that question has not been answered to your liking?

I have no “liking”. The idea of separating attributes into “important” (essence) an “not important” (accident) seems to be a sensible one, at first sight. But when tries to apply this distinction, problems arise.

What is “essential” and “non-essential” is a value judgment, and it reflects on the attitude of the one, who is trying to make that distinction. Again (just with beauty) it is a subjective categorization. What is the “essence” of a rubber ball? For the child the essence is that he can play with it. For the manufacturer the essence is that it can be sold. For the recycler it is that it can be recycled. There is no objective essence and objective accidents. Just like with beauty, essence is in the eyes of the beholder.

We try to put “things” into some neat little “baskets”, but those “baskets” have no actual use and they are mostly subjective.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have no “liking”. The idea of separating attributes into “important” (essence) an “not important” (accident) seems to be a sensible one, at first sight. But when tries to apply this distinction, problems arise.

What is “essential” and “non-essential” is a value judgment, and it reflects on the attitude of the one, who is trying to make that distinction. Again (just with beauty) it is a subjective categorization. What is the “essence” of a rubber ball? For the child the essence is that he can play with it. For the manufacturer the essence is that it can be sold. For the recycler it is that it can be recycled. There is no objective essence and objective accidents. Just like with beauty, essence is in the eyes of the beholder.

We try to put “things” into some neat little “baskets”, but those “baskets” have no actual use and they are mostly subjective.

And your analysis, too, is “subjective.” Where do we get off this merry-go-round?

You are advocating that we get off when you start “feeling” sick. Fine.

That does not mean we all “feel” sick when you do. Nor that your “feeling” sick is any indicator of reality merely because it is YOUR subjective determination.

It seems, that you pull the “subjective” card on anything you want to dismiss, but then pull it back where you want to insist you are right. Why not dismiss your view as subjective, along with the others based upon the “mostly” subjective criterion?

Note: I assume “mostly” subjective distinguishes non-Hee_Zen opinions (subjective) from Hee_Zen opinions (objective.)

 

[Hee_Zen]

And your analysis, too, is “subjective.”

If so, then you should be able to present an actual analysis of some object and enumerate the “essential” and “accidental” properties. You can choose the object. Go ahead; make my day.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If so, then you should be able to present an actual analysis of some object and enumerate the “essential” and “accidental” properties. You can choose the object. Go ahead; make my day.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make your day today, because I have to run to a meeting in a few minutes and have appointments through the day today and a Bible study this evening…

…but perhaps I will make your day on another day - tomorrow might work.

 

[Thomas_White]

Yes, they did. They said that the “essence” is a ridiculous concept. I also asked the human proponents of this concept and they had no answer either.

Could you show anyone the whole number 1, not an instance of it but as it exists in mathematics?

Beyond that, you answered this yourself by referring to ‘essence’ as a concept, a word that is a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing–and in this instance a thing that exists as a concept.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to make your day today, because I have to run to a meeting in a few minutes and have appointments through the day today and a Bible study this evening…

…but perhaps I will make your day on another day - tomorrow might work.

No hurry. I suggest to pick an inanimate object, like a “chair”, and living one, like a “human”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I was distracted by college finals . . . please read it. . .

You weren’t addressing me, but I read it.

Yes, real life can be distracting.

Going off on a tangent:

My son finished his exams yesterday. He is enrolled in a very difficult progarm in which only 40% of those who met the stringent requirements to get in, end up graduating. It is his dream to succeed and he has been giving it his all. But, the odds are less than fifty-fifty. It could be very disappointing and there will be months of sadness, anxiety, guilt, shame and anger to follow a negative result. Eventually, there would be a final acceptance, a picking up of oneself and moving on through the next door opened by God.

I mention all this because these are the “brute facts” of life - the undeniable realities that exist whether or not we are ever aware of the movement of celestial bodies.
It is in dealing with life as it presents itself that we grow.

Being involved within this process, it is difficult to discern the truth of our condition.
This truth, it must be emphasized, is not to be found in physics or through any use of the scientific method.
It has to do with meaning, existence, relationships, virtues such as courage, honesty, patience and their counterpart vices.

While it is a delight to speculate on the mysteries of creation through the knowledge it provides, science is merely a tool, pure and simple.
One finds however, that to delineate its limitations, gets some people really upset.
Whereas philosophy and theology help clarify existential mysteries, science is an inadequate substitute, giving only a false sense of clarity and orderliness to life.

Unable to otherwise come to terms with the complexities, especially the horrors of life, some run to the security offered by the order that underlies nature.
Unfortunately, for those who seek in science, a refuge from the torments of the real world, they will find only illusion in the form of mere ideas, always under threat.
One way to look at it, there are no true “facts”, only agreements in the interpretations that arise from the relationship that exists between the two mysteries of self and other.
We agree to approach a matter the same way and we end up with views that can coexist.
Life is no less of a mystery, and the abyss not diminished by this agreement that all is not chaos.

While interesting (mind-blowing actually because of the immensity) to contemplate, it does not really matter to know how far the sun the sun and the moon are to the earth. It becomes important when one looks to the heavens for a sense of constancy, predictability, order. A lunar eclipse puts it all in jeopardy and it is here that such information helps restore the balance. That is, until it is challenged.
People get very anxious, angry and defensive when their foundations are shaken.

Shaken enough times, one hopefully will find oneself rooted in what is True, He who is who He is, Reality. . . which is Love, btw.

:twocents:

 

[Thomas_White]

I’ll have what he’s having…

Not easily you won’t. Where I have been there is no “I”.

 

[cisco_1]

Could you please quote some historical evidence for the “virgin birth”? For the “walking on water”? For feeding a crowd “with one loaf of bread and one fish”? For “turning water into wine”? For the “resurrection”? And the rest of the alleged “miracles”? The Jews were excellent record keepers, yet they somehow “overlooked” these minor supporting facts…

I am familiar with the phrase: “liar, lunatic of lord”? Guess what… the author of this phrase forgot the fourth possibility: “legend”. In those ancient times there were all sorts of “legends”, and the people believed them.

The evidence for what i see is the massive social impact that happened from Jesus. It is also pieces of the puzzle.

First, the historicity of Jesus is fully confirmed. You can read books from secular top rank historians such as Atheist Michael Grant, Ehrman, Van Voorst, etc that Jesus was in no doubt historical. They are so serious in that claim that they ridicule anybody who even suggests he was a legend or makes claims that the evidence is weak. The Jesus being a legend controversy has been considered academically fallacious a long time ago and it is so bad that anti-christians are better off using arguments from Dan Brown’s the divicini code than ever making an argument that Jesus never existed.

Second, since the historical impact is firmly agreed on, we then look at the social impact. All the closest followers of Jesus were Jews of the ancient times and Jews of the ancient times did not just abandon their culture/beliefs. If Jesus was never who he said he was, his whole legacy would have ended when he died on the cross. Reason why is because the death of Jesus would have confirmed him as a fraud: He isn’t the Messiah. The Jews strongly believed in this Messiah to be a firm ruler and being killed and humiliated by their enemies (the romans) is just hard “debunkery”. However, these Jewish followers attested so strongly that he rose from the dead, so strongly that they were willing to die horrible deaths for it. Their deaths are historically recorded in the places they were executed in. Read Nero, read how Paul was killed… read other locations that record John being bathed in boiling oil, Thomas being speared, James being thrown off a building and beaten… these were all historical fates and their was absolutely no gain in their attesting. So what would cause these Jews to just go “he is the messiah” for no reason? If Jesus was a liar, what kind of lie did he pull off to make conservative jews believe he was God, the Messiah, and resurrected after a roman execution? In order to refute or atleast weaken the historicity of the Resurrection then that person must refute the sociology that happened.

 

[KidCatholic1]

The evidence for what i see is the massive social impact that happened from Jesus. It is also pieces of the puzzle.

First, the historicity of Jesus is fully confirmed. You can read books from secular top rank historians such as Atheist Michael Grant, Ehrman, Van Voorst, etc that Jesus was in no doubt historical. They are so serious in that claim that they ridicule anybody who even suggests he was a legend or makes claims that the evidence is weak. The Jesus being a legend controversy has been considered academically fallacious a long time ago and it is so bad that anti-christians are better off using arguments from Dan Brown’s the divicini code than ever making an argument that Jesus never existed.

Second, since the historical impact is firmly agreed on, we then look at the social impact. All the closest followers of Jesus were Jews of the ancient times and Jews of the ancient times did not just abandon their culture/beliefs. If Jesus was never who he said he was, his whole legacy would have ended when he died on the cross. Reason why is because the death of Jesus would have confirmed him as a fraud: He isn’t the Messiah. The Jews strongly believed in this Messiah to be a firm ruler and being killed and humiliated by their enemies (the romans) is just hard “debunkery”. However, these Jewish followers attested so strongly that he rose from the dead, so strongly that they were willing to die horrible deaths for it. Their deaths are historically recorded in the places they were executed in. Read Nero, read how Paul was killed… read other locations that record John being bathed in boiling oil, Thomas being speared, James being thrown off a building and beaten… these were all historical fates and their was absolutely no gain in their attesting. So what would cause these Jews to just go “he is the messiah” for no reason? If Jesus was a liar, what kind of lie did he pull off to make conservative jews believe he was God, the Messiah, and resurrected after a roman execution? In order to refute or atleast weaken the historicity of the Resurrection then that person must refute the sociology that happened.

Excellent post! Good job!

 

[Hee_Zen]

The evidence for what i see is the massive social impact that happened from Jesus. It is also pieces of the puzzle.

The evidence for “virgin birth”, and “walking on water”, etc…? People are willing die horrible deaths for what they consider “worth” dying for. That fact in no way lends credence to the cause for which they are willing to sacrifice themselves.

 

[cisco_1]

The evidence for “virgin birth”, and “walking on water”, etc…? People are willing die horrible deaths for what they consider “worth” dying for. That fact in no way lends credence to the cause for which they are willing to sacrifice themselves.

Can you list me atleast 5 people who were willing to die of horrible deaths of a man who claimed to be God and claimed to come back to life 3 days after a Roman style execution. I’m not going to deny that there have been people who have killed or died over a lie, but i’m asking for a particular lie. Those people who killed themselves did not give themselves to something as extraordinary as a claim from their leader being god and “proving” it to them by coming back to life.

If we confirm the historicity of Jesus and then the biggest thing about him (the Resurrection) then there is no reason why we should be skeptical on the other things such as the virgin birth and the walking on water. Again, a person claiming to be God and coming back to life is a higher demand of extraordinary evidence than anything and if both are not true than how did those apostles of him believe it?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Can you list me atleast 5 people who were willing to die of horrible deaths of a man who claimed to be God and claimed to come back to life 3 days after a Roman style execution.

As they say, “claims” are dime a dozen. There is no historical evidence for the “resurrection”. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and there is no record of any of those alleged “miraculous” events. What we deal here is mythology - the particular “claims” notwithstanding. And I never speak about “lies”, so please do not put words into my mouth. Legends, yes - and those were also dime a dozen.

 

[KidCatholic1]

As they say, “claims” are dime a dozen. There is no historical evidence for the “resurrection”. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and there is no record of any of those alleged “miraculous” events. What we deal here is mythology - the particular “claims” notwithstanding. And I never speak about “lies”, so please do not put words into my mouth. Legends, yes - and those were also dime a dozen.

Many people claimed to be God and failed. Jesus fulfilled all the necessary messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, as Christians should believe. The odds of that happening is less than 10 to the 157th power. Much, much less than that.
lamblion.com/articles/articles_bible6.php
biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

 

[Hans_W]

I hope you don’t mind if I cut out a few snippets from your post, hopefully not taking them out of context.

This truth, it must be emphasized, is not to be found in physics or through any use of the scientific method.
It has to do with meaning, existence, relationships, virtues such as courage, honesty, patience and their counterpart vices.

Science gets us, progressively, closer to the truth about the physical world. Religion does not.

If you ask questions about the meaning of life, about love, beauty, courage, honesty, etc., these are not for science to answer.

While it is a delight to speculate on the mysteries of creation through the knowledge it provides, science is merely a tool, pure and simple.
One finds however, that to delineate its limitations, gets some people really upset.
Whereas philosophy and theology help clarify existential mysteries, science is an inadequate substitute, giving only a false sense of clarity and orderliness to life.

If you have such a poor view of science, imagine yourself living 400 years ago. You probably wouldn’t be alive anymore, because the life expectancy was only 40 yrs.

Science is a great tool to give us new knowledge. Some people see it as the only tool, but then they slip into scientism. I can’t see what philosophy has done over the last 2000 years to “clarify existential mysteries”, or theology for that matter.

Unable to otherwise come to terms with the complexities, especially the horrors of life, some run to the security offered by the order that underlies nature.
Unfortunately, for those who seek in science, a refuge from the torments of the real world, they will find only illusion in the form of mere ideas, always under threat.
One way to look at it, there are no true “facts”, only agreements in the interpretations that arise from the relationship that exists between the two mysteries of self and other.
We agree to approach a matter the same way and we end up with views that can coexist.
Life is no less of a mystery, and the abyss not diminished by this agreement that all is not chaos.

I have only been following this thread occasionally, but judging from its title and your views I have to assume that you have no idea what science is all about.

While interesting (mind-blowing actually because of the immensity) to contemplate, it does not really matter to know how far the sun the sun and the moon are to the earth. It becomes important when one looks to the heavens for a sense of constancy, predictability, order.

Well, you should be grateful that some people are curious enough to look at the real world, otherwise we would be still living in caves.

People get very anxious, angry and defensive when their foundations are shaken.

Yes, some people do - but you are not referring to scientists, I hope. Scientists like to challenge the foundations, and be challenged. That’s their job. That’s what earns them a Nobel Prize.

 

[cisco_1]

As they say, “claims” are dime a dozen. There is no historical evidence for the “resurrection”. The Romans were very meticulous record keepers, and there is no record of any of those alleged “miraculous” events. What we deal here is mythology - the particular “claims” notwithstanding. And I never speak about “lies”, so please do not put words into my mouth. Legends, yes - and those were also dime a dozen.

You did not stick to my point. Claims are a dime a dozen, but how many “I AM GOD. I RETURNED TO LIFE AFTER A ROMAN EXECUTION” claims has there been?See your problem is, you are viewing the claims of being God and returning from the dead as a claim equal to that of the rest of cults through out history. I’ve said it before that his apostles were Jews, they would not just throw away their judaistic beliefs that easily so you are dealing with a very high strict faith (Ancient Judaism) and a very extraordinary claim (the claim to be god and coming back after execution). In order for you to make a good point as to why the resurrection is questionable you need to explain what caused the belief of the Apostles. Right now you are just saying “many made claims… and many people believed it just like that” yet refusing to take in thought of how big of an extraordinary claim jesus made and how it is necessary for something big to make these ancient jews believe in it to the point that they would allow themselves to be brutally murdered for it.

Let me give you an example: Lets say a new “2nd coming of Jesus” poser comes in, goes into the Vatican, other Churches (Catholic and Protestant) and eventually gets shot in the head. If this guy does not come back from the dead, wouldn’t this confirm that he was a liar? Do you think the Vatican would alter their whole beliefs and lay their lives on the line regardless of knowing he is a fraud?

 

[cisco_1]

Science gets us, progressively, closer to the truth about the physical world. Religion does not.

If you ask questions about the meaning of life, about love, beauty, courage, honesty, etc., these are not for science to answer.

Science was never supportive of Atheism at all. People of this generation think so because they’ve read too many stuff on google and just believe it. The majority of the foundations of Science was founded by Christians/religious people. The Big Bang - founded by a Priest, the Law of Gravity - Newton, the Debunking of Heliocentric theory - Galileo, even Evolution - St Augustine. Religion does not get us close to the Physical world because it is meant for spirituality however science was never a counter to it.

There is nothing in science that shows Language, order, and systems can just pop out of thin air unintentionally. Saying there is no maker forces the person to provide a reason for an accident to be logical… and until there is even just a common example, atheism is nothing different than a person looking at my car, seeing the engine that allows it to run, and then comes telling me that it made itself. No disrespect… but please do not buy into those google sites.

 

[Hee_Zen]

You did not stick to my point. Claims are a dime a dozen, but how many “I AM GOD. I RETURNED TO LIFE AFTER A ROMAN EXECUTION” claims has there been?See your problem is, you are viewing the claims of being God and returning from the dead as a claim equal to that of the rest of cults through out history.

Of course I do. There is one important feature for all of them. None has an evidence for it.

I’ve said it before that his apostles were Jews, they would not just throw away their judaistic beliefs that easily so you are dealing with a very high strict faith (Ancient Judaism) and a very extraordinary claim (the claim to be god and coming back after execution). In order for you to make a good point as to why the resurrection is questionable you need to explain what caused the belief of the Apostles. Right now you are just saying “many made claims… and many people believed it just like that” yet refusing to take in thought of how big of an extraordinary claim jesus made and how it is necessary for something big to make these ancient jews believe in it to the point that they would allow themselves to be brutally murdered for it.

This is special pleading. You singled out Judaism as if it were somehow “special”.

Let me give you an example: Lets say a new “2nd coming of Jesus” poser comes in, goes into the Vatican, other Churches (Catholic and Protestant) and eventually gets shot in the head. If this guy does not come back from the dead, wouldn’t this confirm that he was a liar? Do you think the Vatican would alter their whole beliefs and lay their lives on the line regardless of knowing he is a fraud?

Some people might. People are still extremely gullible. People were willing to drink poison, and give it their children in Jonestown. Does that lend credence to the claims by their leader?

 

[Gorgias]

This is special pleading. You singled out Judaism as if it were somehow “special”.

I’m convinced that most who argue against ‘special pleading’ have no idea what that logical fallacy, in fact, consists of. You seem to be laboring under precisely such a lack of knowledge. The ‘special pleading’ fallacy does not exist in the fact that something is being called ‘special’; rather, it’s that it’s being claimed as an exception where no such distinction exists. If one claimed “Jews are a special case 'cause, well, they’re Jews!”, then you could claim special pleading. If, on the other hand, one claimed – as cisco1 did – that in that period of time, Jews did not simply abandon their faith in great numbers, then there’s no ‘special pleading’ there: cisco1 claimed a special case and substantiated it.

Nice try with the buzzword, though.