Subject:
|
Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:48:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3681 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm not sure of the point of the selective recap, but I'll let the others
answer for themselves.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > So yes, the bottom line for me is the scientific method is wonderful for
> > investigating that which can be understood by science (i.e. the physical
> > universe). To say it's good for *everything* is making science into a god.
> > That would be my assertion.
>
> If we can agree, then we can all go home. I'll even take out the i.e.
> physical universe bit and not try to reduce science to *just* the physical
> universe.
"Once there was a way, to get back home...."
You are the one equating science and god. Yes, I know, you are staring at
your screen and saying, "I never said that. I don't believe that."
First, you just said it. You aren't quoting anyone above, you are just
trying to define someone else as believing that, but only in your opinion
("that would be my assetation"). The point is, you are the one expressing
the opinion, and everyone on this board has denied the validity of your claim.
You don't believe that (that science = god). So? You are still the only
one trying to establish the connection. You are doing so to undermine those
that you don't agree with rather than actually establish that science = god,
but it doesn't change the fact that you are the only one saying such.
So, no, we don't agree.
Just so you understand and don't try the Reading 101 defense, I took a
reading comprehension test in college, amusingly at the same time my sister
was taking the exact same test in high school. The high school scores
clustered around 25-30 (on a 0-99 scale). I think the highest was in the
fifties. My college class averaged in the fifties, with the second highest
in the high seventies. I was at 89. I passed the maximum test of 99 by
course end. No one else reached my starting point. I suspect reading
convoluted war game rules (ahhh, the heady days of SPI legalese) had a lot
to do with it.
Of course, anyone can make an error, and I am not immune. But others are
telling you the same thing, so perhaps it is time for you to consider, like
the "I never said evolution isn't science" claim, that perhaps the one that
isn't isn't grasping the concept is you.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
