08 Nov 07
Yo Freaky
Expect a thread entitled Science Wars soon. You may like to contribute.
In the meantime, I'd still like to see a decent justification of your assertions that Christianity is not a religion and science is (using recognised definitions of each term) in this thread.
--- Penguin.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by PenguinYo Penguin.
Yo Freaky
Expect a thread entitled Science Wars soon. You may like to contribute.
In the meantime, I'd still like to see a decent justification of your assertions that Christianity is not a religion and science is (using recognised definitions of each term) in this thread.
--- Penguin.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the lecture. It doesn't get any more decent than what I've offered.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd how do you suggest that we go about discovering new things, if not by trial and error? Read an ancient book and accept everything it tells you is the truth? Even out of the realm of science or religion, how do you come to have knowledge of something new? Does it just pop into your head from nowhere?
"Christian-speak?" How positively ignorant of you.
The scientific method--- strictly speaking--- is trial by error. Some great examples of such lunacy are the methods used to determine whether or not a person accused of witchcraft was, indeed, a witch.
And that's just for starters. What of the assumption that one knows the right questions to ask?
Witch trials were religiously motivated, they involved no scientific process whatsoever.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by StarrmanYou misread my intent. "The scientific method strictly applied" as the sole arbiter of reality posits a worldview that is decisively unfair. It makes priests out of scientists and simply exchanges one religious system for another.
And how do you suggest that we go about discovering new things, if not by trial and error? Read an ancient book and accept everything it tells you is the truth? Even out of the realm of science or religion, how do you come to have knowledge of something new? Does it just pop into your head from nowhere?
Witch trials were religiously motivated, they involved no scientific process whatsoever.
Witch trials were religiously motivated, they involved no scientific process whatsoever.
Agreed, in part. While religiously motivated, all such inquisitions are base attempts for power. However, they were most emphatically scientific in nature: if you floated (observed phenomena), you were a witch. Just because the method was incorrectly applied or the data was errantly analyzed does not change the fact that science was employed.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt does no such thing, it merely attempts to seek empirical answers to objective questions. Foolish attempts to mould the subjectivity of religion into the equation cause that process to break down. I have no idea what you mean when you say world view, science is a methodological process, religion is a world view. If you intend to mean that most scientists hold the same world view you are very much mistaken. Most of what makes up ones world view is culturally and socially caused, scientific process has little to do with this. I think you're confusing scientists (people) and science (process).
You misread my intent. "The scientific method strictly applied" as the sole arbiter of reality posits a worldview that is decisively unfair. It makes priests out of scientists and simply exchanges one religious system for another.
[b]Witch trials were religiously motivated, they involved no scientific process whatsoever.
Agreed, in part. While r ...[text shortened]... applied or the data was errantly analyzed does not change the fact that science was employed.[/b]
The second part of your post is just rubbish, the people conducting the drowning had no scientific process in mind. If they had they'd have realised that all people can float and that drowning will kill all people, witch or otherwise. The intention of the drowning was to make all such proceedures analytically effective, that is to say, they would always cause the same outcome by definition of their method. That's much more akin to religion than to science.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI have no idea what you mean when you say world view, science is a methodological process, religion is a world view.
It does no such thing, it merely attempts to seek empirical answers to objective questions. Foolish attempts to mould the subjectivity of religion into the equation cause that process to break down. I have no idea what you mean when you say world view, science is a methodological process, religion is a world view. If you intend to mean that most scientis me outcome by definition of their method. That's much more akin to religion than to science.
Holding the idea that the (really, a) scientific method as the best arbiter of reality is, by definition, a worldview. The process itself is not a worldview, agreed.
... the people conducting the drowning had no scientific process in mind.
They did not conduct experiments for purposes of testing a hypothesis? They did not predict and prove an idea? Come now, you can do much better than this.
... they would always cause the same outcome by definition of their method.
That is an assumption of underlying principles and/or motivations, not a retelling of their stated intents.
That's much more akin to religion than to science.
In the name of religion, in the name of country, in the name of science... it's all about power, baby.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They did not conduct experiments for purposes of testing a hypothesis? They did not predict and prove an idea? Come now, you can do much better than this.
Nope, they just wanted to make absolutely sure they drowned whomever was accused of being a witch.
That is an assumption of underlying principles and/or motivations, not a retelling of their stated intents.
No it's not, I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that drowning a witch is a scientific process. I fear you may actually be mad.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHands down, this is the stupidest thing I have ever read on the forum.
However, they were most emphatically scientific in nature: if you floated (observed phenomena), you were a witch. Just because the method was incorrectly applied or the data was errantly analyzed does not change the fact that science was employed.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI've started a Science Wars thread.
Yo Penguin.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the lecture. It doesn't get any more decent than what I've offered.
You've failed to convince me either that christianity is a not a religion or that science is. Your reasoning has involved a total redefinition of both terms and it still fails even then.
I think you must have given up because even you can see that your position is untenable.
--- Penguin.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by StarrmanNope, they just wanted to make absolutely sure they drowned whomever was accused of being a witch.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They did not conduct experiments for purposes of testing a hypothesis? They did not predict and prove an idea? Come now, you can do much better than this.
Nope, they just wanted to make absolutely sure they drowned whomever was accused of being a witch.
That is an assumption of underlying principles and/ ...[text shortened]... gotten the idea that drowning a witch is a scientific process. I fear you may actually be mad.
So your answer to the questions posed is "Nope." Beautiful. Either you didn't read the questions or are unaware of the facts of history. Either way, your response is incorrect.
Those who tried people for witchcraft had a suspicion of guilt against the accused. They held to the idea that only a witch could float when immersed in water. To prove whether or not a person was a witch, the test would include immersion in water. If the person was observed to float--- according to their rule--- said person was a witch. If the person was observed to drown, they were not a witch. But, for the moment, forget the witchcraft charge. Substitute instead, a test for gold using the buoyancy thereof. The essence of the scientific nature of the experiment remains the same, albeit for categorically different reasons.
That you are not able to see the essence of both as scientific experiments is not surprising. According to your view, any perspective not in line with yours is lunacy. Anyone who came before you is an idiot and all intentions are suspicious in light of your current understanding.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by PenguinI have no doubt that you are not convinced, but I don't necessarily believe it due to my failure. It could be, though. You never know.
I've started a Science Wars thread.
You've failed to convince me either that christianity is a not a religion or that science is. Your reasoning has involved a total redefinition of both terms and it still fails even then.
I think you must have given up because even you can see that your position is untenable.
--- Penguin.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are mad, there's no point having this discussion. I was previously under the impression you were just wrong, now I agree with Dr Scribbles.
[b]Nope, they just wanted to make absolutely sure they drowned whomever was accused of being a witch.
So your answer to the questions posed is "Nope." Beautiful. Either you didn't read the questions or are unaware of the facts of history. Either way, your response is incorrect.
Those who tried people for witchcraft had a suspicion of guilt aga ...[text shortened]... ore you is an idiot and all intentions are suspicious in light of your current understanding.[/b]
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWould you characterize astrology as science, since it relies on observation of stars?
That you are not able to see the essence of both as scientific experiments is not surprising. According to your view, any perspective not in line with yours is lunacy. Anyone who came before you is an idiot and all intentions are suspicious in light of your current understanding.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst of all, don't attempt to make an argument that I am not making. It only serves to propogate your silliness.
Would you characterize astrology as science, since it relies on observation of stars?
The witch tests of the past employed scientific methods, regardless of the bone-headedness their assumptions.
Astronomy and astrology also employ scientific methods, with a significant distinction. Whereas they both observe and note movement within the celestial bodies, astrology places significance on such movement while astronomy places no meaning on the same.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRetard.
First of all, don't attempt to make an argument that I am not making. It only serves to propogate your silliness.
The witch tests of the past employed scientific methods, regardless of the bone-headedness their assumptions.
Astronomy and astrology also employ scientific methods, with a significant distinction. Whereas they both observe and note m ...[text shortened]... , astrology places significance on such movement while astronomy places no meaning on the same.