| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> Did I take that out of context?
No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own
statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa.
> disprove the existence of little green faeiries but in the scientific domain
> it can hypothesize the non-existence of said beasties, and most people would
> accept that hypothesis. Try that with God.
I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not
the purpose of scientific methods. Science does not attempt to make any
assumptions beyond observable phenomena. No scientist would hypothesize the
non-existence of green fairies or any beasties because it is completely
unnecessary to do so. The same thing is true of god. Lacking all evidence
or data that god, green fairies, or beasties exist -- there will not be any
theories about any of those things coming from the scientific community.
Science doesn't say that those things couldn't exist, there is just zero
proof that they do. End of story. It's really not that complicated.
No scientific theory has the intent of disproving faith-based ideas because
there is NO DATA for or against such ideas. I guess in this sense (and I
hope I am not mistating it) science is kind of maintaining an agnostic*
stance rather than an atheistic one. Science is not hostile to the idea of
god -- it doesn't care about that idea in the first place because there is
no data one way or the other!
No observable data = no scientific theory.
> So again, we come back to the idea that 'well, we don't know all of it
> today, we don't know enuf yet, but we'll get there--we will eventually know
> *everything* due to our scientific pursuits'
No, actually my model suggests that there is always something new to study.
Theory never really becomes "fact" -- just a best guess, utilitarian thing.
If it serves us, the theory stands. If not, we do away with it. Science
has no emotional investment in any theory.
> Sounds like a faith statement to me--"well, we don't know our god yet, but
> he's slowly revealing himself and his creation to us--we just have to work
> harder, and have a better understanding, and over the span of time,
> eventually we'll know all that there is to know for our god knows all
> (eventually)."
A straw man argument erected by a man of faith -- or so I assume...
I have said no such thing. Science and scientific methods are useful.
Faith-based beliefs are not useful in anything like the same way that
scientific thought is useful. I buy big into science -- which serves me;
but very little into faith beliefs which do not serve me nearly as well.
> If that is not what you meant by 'these do not mean that there are things
> outside the scope of scientific process to understand them -- even if our
> methods of analysis and understanding the phenomena is limited at this
> time' then please clarify.
I would say that our reality model is growing. Twenty years ago we had no
idea that we could map the human genome -- today it is very much a reality.
It has been done. We have to address all the new data presented by such an
occurance. For example, we thought the data comprising DNA would be larger
in size for human beings than other species, it turns out to be smaller than
our best predictions. Such discoveries must be addressed. What is so hard to
understand about this?
Just because you or I do not have the scientific explanation for a phenomena
doesn't mean that such an explanation doesn't exist, BTW -- I really do not
claim to know everything.
> And I would *never* presume to find something that tries to compete with the
> logical, reasonable, and adaptable human endeavour known as the pursuit of
> scientific discovery. I say leave the scientifically understandable ideas
> to science. I haven't yet, nor do I feel a particular urge to do go 'find
> something else'. I think I've mentioned this at least once--I appreciate
> science. Are we reading each other clearly here?
I guess not. You actually seem to have a big problem with some basic ideas
behind scientific methodology. I think those of us on the "science side" of
the debate are just trying to clear up what appear to be misconceptions
about the goals and methods of science. We also do not want to be
misunderstood.
> Those that elevate science *above* *my* God, however, by saying that 'nothing
> *can* exist outside the domain of science' are basically telling me I'm
> dellusional in my belief, that I'm wacko, that, 'hey, there's that crazy
> guy--y'know, he believes in some god or other.' It is, bottom line, making
> me less than you--and that certainly isn't so.
You can believe whatever you want. Everyone wants this exact same freedom.
Yes, you can conceive of things that are not provable nor disprovable by
scientific means -- but that doesn't mean that these conceptions become part
of the reality model accepted by scienctists. I am sorry, but they remain
your unique ideas, wacko or otherwise...and the same is true even if we
expand those holding these unique ideas from a single individual to a whole
group. Even when hundreds of people think a rust stain on a wall is a sign
of the Black Madonna, it's still just a rust stain to science.
No one is putting you down for your faith-based ideas. We are putting down
the idea that such ideas are useful to a republican society in the same way
that scientific knowledge is useful. If you personally have utility for
faith-based ideas, then that's great -- just don't expect ME or society at
large to care about your particular beliefs. Even if we reversed this, and
everyone in society but myself believed in the Black Madonna -- I still have
the right to believe otherwise and science would back me up. But I don't
want to confuse a discussion about utility with issues concerning rights, so
I'll stop here.
> Not just because of my sense of the divine 'we're, each and every one of us,
> created in His image', and not just 'cause some piece of paper enshrined in a
> hall somewhere states that 'all men are created equal,' but by the logical
> constructs that postulate (and the historically accurate idea), the moment
> you dehumanize *any* member of your society, you can find a reason to
> dehumanize *all* members of your society. You don't want me to belittle your
> system, so don't belittle mine.
Your sense of the divine, nor mine, has anything to do with science or
scientific methodology -- not absent ANY compelling data for it to be otherwise.
All men are not created equal -- they are thought to have the same rights
under the law.
Dehumanizing people is not the aim of science --whatever you may mean by
dehumanize. The separation of church and state, hopefully and generally,
keeps religion out of the focus of public discourse. Faith-based beliefs
are highly personal, and I say let's keep them that way.
None of this has to do with science or scientific processes.
> Do you understand that science *may* not encompass *everything* there is to
> the human existence? That it *may* never be able to understand for there
> *may* be things outside the domain of scientific endeavour? I'm open to
> that possibility.
No, I reject that notion -- further I disagree with your construction of the
critical issues.
I know that science doesn't currently have answers for everything we observe
-- hence the use of "theories." Nothing observable is beyond being studied
by scientific means.
Please show me something in human experience that is beyond observation and
study. A tautology will not do, nor will statements that "beg the question."
-- Hop-Frog
*ag·nos·tic (ag nosÆtik), n.
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and
the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human
knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in
some area of study.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
