subjective science

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I personally have more respect for someone who looks at all the arguments out there and decides there is insufficient evidence to substantiate an answer. Far better to say 'I don't know' than throw your weight behind an answer that is unsubstantiated. (Or incorrect).

So, for example, as to how the universe came in to existence, I've looked at and ...[text shortened]... g' and have jumped on to the 'Goddidit' bandwagon, despite its shaky wheels and poor trajectory.

Exactly what are the flaws in creation you see that are so compelling?

Originally posted by @fmf
Then why did you think your teaching of Physics was an appropriate lens through which to scrutinize the matter of supernatural causality that we were in the midst of discussing?

My teaching of Physics is an appropriate lens through which to scrutinize whether critical thinking takes place.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My teaching of Physics is an appropriate lens through which to scrutinize whether critical thinking takes place.

Why would you see yourself as an "educator", in the realm of your students' superstitions or lack thereof, imagining yourself dishing out "passes" and "fails" according to whether they are "convinced" creationists or "convinced" atheists or 'don't knows' to a degree sufficient to gain your approval?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity? A scientist that presupposes evolution will look at the same evidence as a scientist that presupposes creation and they will reach different conclusions.

No, it is not true.

For one, forget about objectivity as you picture it, by means of “Yes or No?” as you use to pose it. “Objectivity” is merely our global consensus as regards the products of our collective subjectivity. Other objectivity than that, is non-existent.
This does not mean that the accepted scientific facts and evidence are not considered verified and objective herenow. We accept them as if they were accurate until this very moment, and we are ever ready to discard them when we will establish new theories grounded on new peer reviewed and verified scientific data.

The reason why the god idea, the Flat Earth theory and the theory of intelligent design amongst else are discarded by the majority of the scientific community, is the fact that they are not backed up with concrete scientific facts and evidence. Indeed, seeking scientific support in order to prove the validity of differ religious beliefs is ill advised. For, whatever is developed as a religious dogma, it is developed solely by insight. Whether this insight is purified by meditation, remains the €1,000,000 question. And even if it is purified by some meditators, for the time being it ain’t mean a thing to the scientific community.

Since all the spiritual truths (if any of them truly hold as regards our physical world, our inner world and the world of our ideas, that is) were discovered without the help of any external instrument, it is at least as meaningless to seek support from Science to prove religious truths as it is incongruous and preposterous to depend on changing scientific concepts to prove perennial religious truths. For, Science is all about the precise analysis and study of the physical world –while religious systems are a complex of spiritual and psychological discipline, they are paths to follow and practice.

OK, Science rejects the theory of intelligent design. So what? A believer of this religious theory, like you or our theist friends for example, is free to accept and honor it if this is what he wants to do. However a scientist dead sure that intelligent design holds but his papers are either non-existent or rejected by the scientific community, is not a scientist. Neither is a scientist one who claims he scientifically knows, when his supposed scientific knowledge is not scientific at all.
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you are saying his beliefs about the supernatural and his scientific discoveries are the same thing? 🙄

I am saying that Dr Watson's work does not support your superstitious beliefs.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, it is not true.

For one, forget about objectivity as you picture it, by means of “Yes or No?” as you use to pose it. “Objectivity” is merely our global consensus as regards the products of our collective subjectivity. Other objectivity than that, is non-existent.
This does not mean that the accepted scientific facts and evidence are not conside ...[text shortened]... ms he scientifically knows, when his supposed scientific knowledge is not scientific at all.
😵

Your interesting post may not fit neatly into dj2becker's "backbone" v "cop out" dichotomy. 😛

Originally posted by @fmf
I am saying that Dr Watson's work does not support your superstitious beliefs.

Obviously not from your perspective.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, it is not true.

For one, forget about objectivity as you picture it, by means of “Yes or No?” as you use to pose it. “Objectivity” is merely our global consensus as regards the products of our collective subjectivity. Other objectivity than that, is non-existent.
This does not mean that the accepted scientific facts and evidence are not conside ...[text shortened]... ms he scientifically knows, when his supposed scientific knowledge is not scientific at all.
😵

What if the majority of scientists are brainwashed into believing evolution is a scientific fact, wouldn't that mean that the scientific community could just reject any evidence that doesn't fit their bill?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously not from your perspective.

You should contact him and suggest he incorporate your perspective into his work. You can threaten to symbolically give him "zero" for his 'critical thinking skills' if he declines to do so.

Originally posted by @dj2becker to Ghost of a Duke
If you weren't boxed into your narrow paradigm of atheism maybe you could be more objective when evaluating arguments.

Ghost of a Duke,

It would appear that dj2becker asserts that he is "objective" where as you are not. Has he thusly got you in a discursive armlock I wonder. 😉

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Exactly what are the flaws in creation you see that are so compelling?

Firstly, the lack of any credible evidence that 'your' particular God is responsible for creation. (Why not the Hindu God of creation?)

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke,

It would appear that dj2becker asserts that he is "objective" where as you are not. Has he thusly got you in a discursive armlock I wonder. 😉

As always, the fellow has things back to front. It is of course he not I who is boxed in to a particular way of thinking, due to believing he already has the answer (even though that answer is unsubstantiated)

I'm much happier not knowing the square root of 43567905.453 than stubbornly asserting the answer is 7.

Originally posted by @fmf
You should contact him and suggest he incorporate your perspective into his work. You can threaten to symbolically give him "zero" for his 'critical thinking skills' if he declines to do so.

Now you're just trolling.

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke,

It would appear that dj2becker asserts that he is "objective" where as you are not. Has he thusly got you in a discursive armlock I wonder. 😉

Read the OP again you either seem to have forgotten what I wrote or you are just purposefully misrepresenting my position.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
As always, the fellow has things back to front. It is of course he not I who is boxed in to a particular way of thinking, due to believing he already has the answer (even though that answer is unsubstantiated)

I'm much happier not knowing the square root of 43567905.453 than stubbornly asserting the answer is 7.

No answer will ever be good enough for you. I am happy using a calculator rather than continue in my ignorance. 😉