| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
<snip>
> 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 that you fail to recognize it is more the pity.
> Science is not my god nor Richard's god nor Larry's god nor Bruce's god
> nor anyone else's god, despite your ardent desire that it be so. Therefore,
> when you lampoon science by calling it our god, you are no longer addressing
> our points but are instead forming a straw man to attack.
> That's it. That's all. Honestly, this is one of the most basic
> principals of rhetoric and logical discourse, so I'm not interested in
> elucidating it further for you. But please understand that your adamant and
> apparently deliberate effort to misunderstand this is the very thing that
> frustrates everyone else in the debate.
> As I pointed out in another post, every time you declare that science is a
> god, you are broadcasting your own ignorance, and I urge you to stop it. I
> expect you'll say something along the lines of "I was using it in an ironic
> sense," and maybe you were, but that doesn't change the fact that you (and
> only you) have been focusing your debate on your perception of science as
> someone's god.
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):
> No, actually my model suggests that there is always something new to study.
"My model suggests that there is *always* something new to study."
(emphasis mine)
First, the issue that the universe is finite and our understanding is
finite, (which I think has been discussed), therefore we will not *always*
have something new to study, for the physical universe is finite.
This is how I went from everyones idea that science is great for knowing the
known universe, to this idea of Richards that Science is God:
Logical construct:
If there is always something new to study, then there must be an infinite
number of things *to* study.
If there is an infinite number of things to study, that's *everything*
Therefore, science can show us *everything*
K, maybe I was wrong when I said that this line is elevating the scientific
realm to godhood.
And since Bruce gave me room to re-express my views, perhaps someone would
care to re-express this one.
>
> > If you want to talk about the 'divine' nature of God and the 'formation' of
> > sin, that's a totally differnt topic, one which I was versed in more, but
> > that's in the realm of religion, and has no bearing or influence on the
> > scientific domain, or this discussion--it's a tangent from here.
>
> Not if you understood it in context; I was demonstrating that it is very
> possible to prove the non-existence of something, which seems to be central
> to at least part of the larger debate.
And I have no problem in dispensing with non-existant things--if they don't
exist then they don't exist, so this has what to do with *something* outside
the sceintific domain?
>
> > the crux of what I wanted to discuss (well, lately anyway), and that
> > is 'science may not ever encompass or understand *all* that there is to this
> > life'. I think that this is a perfectly logical scientifically realistic
> > idea, and no one has yet to prove otherwise.
>
> "This life" is kind of vague, so let's instead say "the physical
> universe." To that end, I would say that science is, in principle, able to
> explain everything in the physical universe. By "in principle" I mean that
> we might not literally be able to explain the motion of every quark in the
> history of the universe, but there is no phenomenon in the physical universe
> that is inherently--ie, by its fundamental nature--inexplicable by science.
Perfect, I couldn't have said it better.
> For the last time, give me an example of something in the physical
> universe that science cannot in principal explain, and please please please
> don't parrot "God" yet again, and here's why: If he interacts with the
> physical universe then he's part of the physical universe. By your own
> repeated assertion the universe is not infinite. Therefore, even God can be
> explored through science. If he isn't part of the physical universe and
> doesn't interact with it, then you have no way to detect him whatsoever,
> except by some as yet undocumented super-sense that allows you to transcend
> the boundaries of the physical universe.
And I have repeatedly mentioned that if something falls within the purview
of the physical universe, I have no problem showing it to you, and science
can study it until we have gleaned all the information that we can out of
it--In principle, science can come to understand all that makes up the
physical universe. But since we're both on record for saying that there may
be more, let me have my faith. If I have *faith* in God, how can my faith
be shown? If you're looking for me to point there and say, 'Oh, there's God
impacting the physical universe there, and over here too!' then you're
talking to the wrong Christian, my friend.
And your premise 'if the universe is finite (which I do continue to assert,
and I think is a scientifically viable theory--who agrees with me?),
therefore even God can be explored thru science' I think, is not even close
to valid. The universe is finite, that does not mean *my* God is.
If someone thinks that God interacts with the physical universe, and does
stuff until we can explain it thru a theory of science, we're back to the
god of the gap. Hey, that's not *my* God.
I don't have to have an undocumented 'super-sense' that allows me to
transcend the boundaries of the physical universe (and if you want to make
what you just finished expalining to me 'a true straw man arguement', then
go ahead, I won't balk and move on...) I have faith that *my* God exists,
and moreover, since it doesn't fit into the scientific framework, you can't
say I'm any less a person than you for having that faith, for things *may*
exist outside the purview of science. Yes you can come up with a construct
that will prove the non-existence of green faeries. However, you cannot
come up with one for God.
So yes, I think I will parrot God, for if you want to tackle the biggest
arguement, instead of smaller straw man issues, there it is.
>
> > Once that is accepted, then I can go and live my life without the idea that
> > you're looking down your nose at me for me having my faith.
>
> For the love of [insert deity here]!!!! You are using a straw man AGAIN!
> I do not look down at you because you have faith; I consider you poorly
> informed and willfully ignorant because you cling to flawed rhetorical
> techniques regardless of how many times they are pointed out to you. I
> don't doubt that you're intelligent; you're reasonably articulate(even if
> you rely too much on pop culture for your anecdotal references(!)), but your
> stubborn refusal to abandon falacious reasoning (ie, appeals to emotion,
> straw man, questionable analogies, receeding targets, et al) is inexcusable.
>
> Dave!
K, I'll try to stop those questionable practices, since not only are they
vexing others, but they are obviously not getting us closer to a solution.
Premise:
Science may not be able to explain everything.
Or yours:
Quoteth Dave!
> I would say that science is, in principle, able to
> explain everything in the physical universe. By "in principle" I mean that
> we might not literally be able to explain the motion of every quark in the
> history of the universe, but there is no phenomenon in the physical universe
> that is inherently--ie, by its fundamental nature--inexplicable by science.
Of which I wholeheartedly concur.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
