26 Jul 19
2 edits
@kellyjay saidWhy on earth do you never use correct grammar? I for one don't know what you are saying by the above. Exactly what are you saying is "not"? Are you saying scientific inquiry is not a search for truth? If so, you are clearly wrong. If not, what are you saying?
The realm of scientific inquiry is a search for truth is not, which would look into whatever is true.
26 Jul 19
@humy saidIt should have read, "is it not". My bad.
Why on earth do you never use correct grammar? I for one don't know what you are saying by the above. Exactly what are you saying is "not"? Are you saying scientific inquiry is not a search for truth? If so, you are clearly wrong. If not, what are you saying?
27 Jul 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidNo it's not. Science is focused on elucidating a certain type of knowledge. It's concerned with the how, not the why. It's a method for understanding, describing and predicting the natural world, a way to test things.
The realm of scientific inquiry is a search for truth is not, which would look into whatever is true. If you are not interested in truth, but instead use it to protect an ideology, you use it with blinders on.
It's not for everyone, and it's clearly not for the overly dogmatic.
27 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidYou are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say we are looking to understand all there is to know about the how, just so predictions about the natural world can happen! That is speaking about the how to understand why to make predictions.
No it's not. Science is focused on elucidating a certain type of knowledge. It's concerned with the how, not the why. It's a method for understanding, describing and predicting the natural world, a way to test things.
It's not for everyone, and it's clearly not for the overly dogmatic.
27 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidthat doesn't make sense...
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say we are looking to understand all there is to know about the how, just so predictions about the natural world can happen! That is speaking about the how to understand why to make predictions.
27 Jul 19
@wildgrass saidNot surprising. Understanding something is grasping for the why it does what it does. How is just the mechanics of it.
that doesn't make sense...
28 Jul 19
@sonhouse saidYour issue is like the example someone used when describing a Ford motor reason for being, one explanation is the laws governing the motors functions, while the other Henry Ford. They are both correct and neither voids the importance of the other.
@KellyJay
Mechanics of things are good enough for us. We don't need a hyptothetical deity to sully our understanding.
28 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidIn the mind of the religious only.
Your issue is like the example someone used when describing a Ford motor reason for being, one explanation is the laws governing the motors functions, while the other Henry Ford. They are both correct and neither voids the importance of the other.
29 Jul 19
@kellyjay saidOnly one is correct. The religious interpretation is in the mind of the believer only. And you cannot prove otherwise. The religious interpretation cannot be falsified so it is not in the slightest a science.
What?