Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1356 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > > > So, where does that come from? How can we rise to be more than a sum of
> > > > our parts? Is not 2 + 2 = 4? Maybe there are some fascinating biochemical
> > > > reactions that we have not studied yet?
> > >
> > > Systems. You are simply describing some of the basic concepts of systems
> > > behavior. Complex systems behavior arising from simple components. Happens
> > > all the time both in biological and non-living systems. No magic there.
>
> > So the whole can be completely, thoroughly, logically, scientifically
> > explained by the sum of the parts? As in there's no magic at all? If there
> > are systems and components we don't understand scientifically today, there
> > will be a time in the future when we will have a scientific answer for those
> > areas?
>
> That's the wrong way to ask the question, IMO. Or at the very least you're
> setting a task for science that isn't science's responsibility to answer.
> The more precise phrasing is this:
>
> {[Are there systems and components in nature that cannot be described through
> scientific analysis?]}
>
> The answer to that question is no. Even if we don't have the answers to
> every single "why did this neuron fire instead of that one" question, we are
> nonetheless able (or can in principle be able) to describe the system under
> which those neurons operate.
>
> Some people find this level of "uncertainty" to be aesthetically
> objectionable, so they seek additional "certainty" in belief systems other
> than science. That's their right, of course.
>
> > This is where your fallacy lies. Since you 'live the science' you can't
> > accept that there might be something outside the science, today or even in
> > the future. You can't accept the 'magic' that may be in the system.
>
> Instead, you're asking us to accept on faith the claim that something
> supernatural might exist. I do not accept that claim on faith; if you have
> evidence of this "something outside the science," then by all means let's see
> it!
Evidence and proof are aspects of science. How can one use 'evidence' to show
'something outside of science'? How can one use 'proofs', which support
scientific evidence, to 'prove' something unprovable?
I agree that we must not stop pursuing our scientific endeavours, that there is
so much to learn by using scientific methodology. That said, I do not believe
that science can answer *all*. You are 'throwing the baby out with the
bathwater' when you say that because there's no proof or evidence of something,
therefore something can't exist.
> . ¬It's not sufficient to say "we don't understand X therefore X must be
> magic." That's nothing more than argument from ignorance (aka God of the
> Gaps). In order to make a claim that magic, or a soul, or a divine hand is at
> work in a given system, one must provide evidence that this is the case.
> Lacking such evidence, the best one can offer is a leap of faith, which some
> people (like me, for instance) reject as an explanatory model of the
> universe.
>
> Dave!
We've talked about this before--I'm not a believer in the 'God of the
Gap'--filling in on things we don't scientifically understand yet. I'm stating
that science cannot answer *everything*--that, whereas science can explain a
great many things, that to state emphatically that there's nothing outside of
science is absurd.
There is such thing as 'faith'. There is such a thing as 'believe'. In the
past we have used such words to dispense with things we don't scientifically
understand, but that's as much a misrepresentation as believing that science can
encompass 'all'.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
70 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
