 | | Re: slight
|
|
This is too long so I'm snipping at will. I have taken great pains to make sure nothing is responded too out of context. (...) What when? Accepting for the moment, that the universe is actually finite, so what? So if we manage to hang on until we (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) The quest for knowledge will just dissipate when we get there? A fundamental human significance--the pursuit of learning--will promptly poof when all that science can teach us is known? Yes it is a Good Thing (tm). I have said so before, and I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) But actually, there are any number of mathematical infinities and they aren't all equally infinite. The number of real numbers between zero and one is infinite, and yet it is half that between negative one and one. An infinity can be operated (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) <huge honkin' snip> I suspect that the idea Dave is trying to get across is that some people promote science and scientific thought as the be-all and end-all of possible knowledge. These people are in their way as close-minded as the extremely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Take your calm and polite posting elsewhere, you wet blanket! But your clarification makes sense--if that's what Dave K thinks then I'd be gratified to have it confirmed. Anyway, here's how the assertion might be phrased: Science is our most (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes, or quotes: (...) I have to admit that this statement must be true. At the same time, and as someone else has pointed out, science is always refining itself and finding new frontiers. So not being (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) God. And to explain that, denies Him. That's *my* faith speaking. Does that make me 'less than' you 'cause I believe and you don't? (...) In principal[sic], God's universe is being explained right now via science. So again, I have no problem (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: <snip> (...) Thanks. That's *exactly* my point--they *may* exist is even better for me to accept than they *do* or *do not* exist. Dave K. (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) You're thinking of the late 1920s... by 1939 the German people were pretty well off again with a fairly stable currency. Unfortunately that prosperity was built on theft via a military dictatorship that happily trampled the rights of everyone. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) It was a misattirbution by Dave! It was I who remarked. Chris (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Yeah, this is a discussion for hotheads like me! (...) Yes, I agree. I think it sums it up good for me. (...) Really? Science can say a bunch of molecules in the brain releasing pheremones, or 'happy chemicals' is the whole justification why I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) And way too many people are following Dubya on, well, not exactly the same road, but a road of happily trampling the rights and freedoms of everyone. You and I are not going along willingly, but a whole bunch of folks are going along, not just (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I don't see where James stated anything like the above interpretation of his statement. Yes, you can believe in green fairies. No, science cannot disprove the existence of the green fairies (there is a reason for that, BTW). These two things (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened form. (...) Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of scientific inquiry? In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Quoteth James "We can certainly concieve of things that are not addressable by science; it is not such a leap of logic to conceed that they may exist. God is one such..." Things that are not addressable by science--that they may exist? Did I (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Then no problem. (...) I'm saying that many aspects of colour preference is quite inside the realm of scientific inquiry, just as stydying a candle and it's many psychological and physiological impacts on a human can, and *should* be studied (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) Just because you say it's a straw man, don't make it so. Quoteth Hop-Frog (...) Further quoteth (...) Not a straw man arguement--you state in the paragraph above that there will *always* be something new to study. How can you make that (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I believe that this is the intellectual hubris that Dave K is refering to when he talks about elevating science to godhood. By rejecting the notion that there might be anything science cannot address, you are attributing a universality to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very definition of a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I thought it was an accurate summation of his position, and not a simplistic caricature at all, and I did not see any proof to the contrary, just the <delete> 'straw man arguement', and therefore my claim that 'calling it a straw man arguement (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) As I said, Richard's identification of your straw man argument doesn't make it so; your argument is a straw man because it caricatures your opponent's position and in so doing you attempt to give yourself an easier target to attack. The fact (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) K, lets look at the one quotatoin that this is directly in resonse to, and let me try to show you how I interpreted it without any straw men in sight: Quoteth Richard (I think): (...) "My (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Faith and Science (was Re: slight)
|
|
Religious persons seem to have a need to create a false opposition between faith and science where no such opposition exists, at least not from the science side of it. To explain this problem I note the following definitions: 1) Faith can be defined (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I'd caution that "infinite" still does not mean "comprehensive," since we could in theory study the potential spatial relationships between two particles and find an infinite number of potential combinations, and that's just two particles. And (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
