 | | 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, 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
