Science is best supported by?

@kellyjay said
It is a free board so that anyone can ask or say anything, anyone can word their own posts anyway they like. Not trying to be rude but having self appointed hall monitors for my posts seems a bit over the top. Especially from ones who think a discussion is over after they state what they believe is true, then refusing to go over the details, so spout what they think, throw in an insult, and call it a day.

Spoken like a real truth seeker.

@kellyjay said
Not trying to be rude but having self appointed hall monitors for my posts seems a bit over the top. Especially from ones who think a discussion is over after they state what they believe is true, then refusing to go over the details, so spout what they think, throw in an insult, and call it a day.

Who in this thread has “hall monitored” or “insulted” you?
Who has “refused to go over details”?
Who is it you think is “spouting”?
Who is “calling it a day”?

Where is all this victimhood nonsense coming from KellyJay?

@moonbus said
I think the worship of parrots should be spelled "Pollytheism". Whereas "Poloytheism" would be the worship of games similar to that played on horseback with a long-handled mallet and once favoured by a certain monarch, Charles by name, before he became a monarch.

😀

For getting to the point you get the cracker.

KellyJay doesn't get it. The best for supporting science is not on his list of choices. And to make matters more difficult for the picking, he has no details to support those he listed as to why anyone choice from the multiple choices he drafted up would best support science. Science is a general term. Which science? Science is a vast field with numerous sub-disciplines.

Looking it up would have given him a better idea on what he can freely do with his created thread, to make for a better discussion, for taking a poll, or a multiple choice quiz. Here is what he may have turned up, if he had bothered to look for some of the main branches of science:

Natural Sciences: These include Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Earth Sciences.
Physical Sciences: Physics, Mechanics, Electromagnetics, Thermodynamics, Kinetics, Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Electrochemistry, Analytical Chemistry.
Life Sciences: Anatomy, Botany, Biology, Zoology, Neurobiology, Marine Biology, Embryology, Ecology, Palaeontology, Genetics, Cell Biology, Aetiology.
Earth Sciences: Astronomy, Meteorology, Geology, Atmospheric Sciences, Glaciology, Climatology, Structural Geology.

Social Sciences: These include Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology.

Formal Sciences: These include Mathematics, Statistics, Logic, Computer Science, Engineering, Agricultural Science, Medicine, Pharmacy, Business Administration, Jurisprudence, Pedagogy.

Applied Sciences: These include Computer Science, Engineering, Agricultural Science, Medicine, Pharmacy, Business Administration, Jurisprudence, Pedagogy 1.

Interdisciplinary Sciences: These include Arts, Communication Studies, History, Humanities, Knowledge Management, Language Studies, Law, Liberal Arts, Literature, Music, Philosophy, Polemology, Professions, Religion, Research and Development, Strategic Studies, Urban Studies, Vocational Education 1.

Specialized Branches of Science: These include Forensic Science (application of science in legal process/criminal investigations), Toxicology (study of chemical components and their effects on living organisms).

And then there are sub-disciplines. Perhaps if we were looking for ticks, Acarology, a sub of Zoology, would be best to support the science, since it specifically details the study of ticks and mites.

@pettytalk said
For getting to the point you get the cracker.

KellyJay doesn't get it. The best for supporting science is not on his list of choices. And to make matters more difficult for the picking, he has no details to support those he listed as to why anyone choice from the multiple choices he drafted up would best support science. Science is a general term. Which science? Science ...[text shortened]... y, would be best to support the science, since it specifically details the study of ticks and mites.

What KellyJay knows about science could do a brodie inside a neutrino. And he wonders why no one engages him in a serious discussion about science.

😆

@pettytalk said
Science is a general term. Which science? Science is a vast field with numerous sub-disciplines.

I think "science" is perceived, by KellyJay, as somewhat of a threat [because of its emphasis on objectivity] to his faith which, as much as he is at pains to deny it, is a complex set of interlocking subjectivities.

@moonbus said
What KellyJay knows about science could do a brodie inside a neutrino. And he wonders why no one engages him in a serious discussion about science.

😆

Spout your dogma and insult. There is not much more to you than that.

@kellyjay said
Spout your dogma and insult. There is not much more to you than that.

This is IMAX level projection.

@bigdogg said
D

Science is about how the natural world works.

It is entirely possible to be a, b or c and still be a good scientist. The theistic stance is not relevant.

You have reasons to single out the theistic stance as not relevant?

@moonbus said
What KellyJay knows about science could do a brodie inside a neutrino. And he wonders why no one engages him in a serious discussion about science.

😆

To tell the truth, I can jump off a low bridge inside a neutrino myself, when it comes to knowing science. If I jump into deep water, the best I can do is the dog paddle, to stay afloat in preventing the water from going over my head.

The small amount of science I was taught at school has long been forgotten, and to stay informed, as needed, I have to look it up again. I thank God for technology and the internet, since it can refresh my memory faster than a speeding bullet. At any rate, faster than I can look it up in books. Although I have to be careful, since the internet is also full of misinformation, besides plain information.

Neutrinos are certainly complicated particles and difficult to get a hold on, let alone get inside of them, since they will pass right through our hands, even if caught.

Perhaps KellyJay will get the wrong impression when you place him inside a neutrino, and still leaving enough room to do a Brodie, as far as knowing science. He will plainly see it as an attempt to belittle his stature and knowledge. And like Jefferson, will take exception to it, and send you a stuffed moose.

@kellyjay said
You have reasons to single out the theistic stance as not relevant?

Isn't BigDogg talking to you?

And isn't the "theistic stance" the only stance you are interested in?

@kellyjay said
You have reasons to single out the theistic stance as not relevant?

Reason already given.

Science is about how the natural world works.

@kellyjay said
A. Atheism
B. Theism
C. Poloytheism
D. None of the above science doesn't need/require any of them?

I think the atheism v theism aspect is perhaps peripheral. If there is a creator entity, then science is probably the closest we get [and are getting] to knowing its nature. Full-blown atheists will most likely reject this. Theism insists that we do know things that we don't know. Theology is about the human condition. Science is about the nature of the universe.

@bigdogg said
Reason already given.

Science is about how the natural world works.

Exactly how does that only apply to one and not the other two? Many of the father's of science were theists that is cause to call theism not relevant, a large number of Noble prize winners are theists, that a good reason?

A foundational view rejecting God has both our brains and the intelligibly of the universe both arising through mindless indifference and due to that we should trust them. Care to actually explain your reasoning with something a little more substantial than its just so?

@kellyjay said
Exactly how does that only apply to one and not the other two? Many of the father's of science were theists that is cause to call theism not relevant, a large number of Noble prize winners are theists, that a good reason?

Interesting that you bring this up KellyJay.

Sir Issac Newton
Was a non-Trinitarian and non-biblical literalist Christian who proposed and published some of the early scientific theories and research into the cause of gravity. But you don’t believe in the scientific explanation of the cause of gravity do you.

Charles Townes
Was a committed Christian (who only passed away a few years ago). He was awarded Nobel prizes for his work on lasers and later discovered that our Milky Way galaxy revolves around a supermassive black hole at its centre, the mass of which distends space so much that it’s gravitational pull holds the galaxy in its spiralling orbit. But you don’t believe in the scientific cause of gravity do you.

But you DO believe that there is a literal actual eternal burning pit of flames and smoke in which billions of non Christians will be tortured forever. By Jesus. And you do believe that there was once a one off literal talking snake and you do believe that the earth and everything on it is about 6,000 years old.

As I said, interesting that you bring these Christian scientists up.

@kellyjay said
Exactly how does that only apply to one and not the other two? Many of the father's of science were theists that is cause to call theism not relevant, a large number of Noble prize winners are theists, that a good reason?

A foundational view rejecting God has both our brains and the intelligibly of the universe both arising through mindless indifference and due to that w ...[text shortened]... . Care to actually explain your reasoning with something a little more substantial than its just so?

Correlation does not equal causation. Many good scientists happen to be theists, but that doesn't mean their theism helped them succeed in science.

There are also good scientists who are atheists, and they managed to succeed despite their lack of theism.