30 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt was completely pointless. You have made some good points elsewhere, but that wasn't one of them. Saying that science is rubbish because it discovers new things is ludicrous. No wonder the thread turned into a joke.
No pretention is necessary. It was an intentional jab at those who hold science (or better, our adeptness at it) as unerring.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease, BDN, don't you bail on me, too. You know perfectly well I never said anything of the rubbish sort relative to science in this thread or any other.
It was completely pointless. You have made some good points elsewhere, but that wasn't one of them. Saying that science is rubbish because it discovers new things is ludicrous. No wonder the thread turned into a joke.
I thought the thread would be over quickly once the point was made, not morphed into something entirely unintended and prolonged into such agonizing nothingness.
Again, for the record (not that one doesn't already exist, mind you), the point was this:
Absolute faith in what has been revealed (or can be revealed) by the scientific method for life applications is foolishness. Reason: knowledge which is informed by such method is limited, and presently more is unknown than known. History has taught us that our limited knowledge is often times wrong--- at times, very wrong.
This revelation of more moons than previously held is another example of the limitation of relying on our knowledge.
01 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolute faith in what has been revealed (or can be revealed) by the scientific method for life applications is foolishness. Reason: knowledge which is informed by such method is limited, and presently more is unknown than known. History has taught us that our limited knowledge is often times wrong--- at times, very wrong.
And you still haven't managed to give us the name of even one scientist who actually has "absolute faith" in what has been or will be revealed. Maybe this is an anti-science stereotype you simply can't get over? Not to mention it makes your argument more valid if you could actually pass such an absurd claim off as true.
This revelation of more moons than previously held is another example of the limitation of relying on our knowledge.
And yet it is only through our scientific knowledge that these moons were discovered. This is not a limitation, no matter how much you try and twist it, but a strength of the method.
-JC
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAbsolute faith in what has been revealed (or can be revealed) by the scientific method for life applications is foolishness. Reason: knowledge which is informed by such method is limited, and presently more is unknown than known. History has taught us that our limited knowledge is often times wrong--- at times, very wrong.
Please, BDN, don't you bail on me, too. You know perfectly well I never said anything of the rubbish sort relative to science in this thread or any other.
I thought the thread would be over quickly once the point was made, not morphed into something entirely unintended and prolonged into such agonizing nothingness.
Again, for the record (not that on ...[text shortened]... e moons than previously held is another example of the limitation of relying on our knowledge.
Freaky, I've come to occasionally have a grudging respect for your point of view, but this statment is idiotic.
knowldege which is informed by such method is limited
What does this mean and how do you arrive at this statement?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHreally. Galliao discovered, with his telescope that Jupiter had 4 moons that went round it. disproving that all the objects in the solar system do not orbit the earth. the fact that subsequently with bigger better telescopes we have detected many more moons of jupiter does not take anthing away from his discovery, and I suspect that if you could go back and ask him whether or not if you had a bigger telescope you might find more moons around jupiter, or moons around other planets, he would say that it was entirely possible, lets build one and find out. I would not call this a 'revelation', it is a discovery, discovering an alien space craft orbiting pluto might be a revelation, discovering yet another moon in the solar system is like finding a new species of river trout in a river somewhere. it's expands our knowledge and may be usefull but doesn't mean we have to rewrite the laws of physics. you also commonly talk about a 'general revelation' which apears to mean (and please correct me if I am wrong) that it is the discovery leading to greater understanding/knoledge of god. This only aplies if such a being exists, which as I explained in one thread or another, is a complete anathomer to science. which is why what you are writeing looks like an attack on science. implying, or outright saying, that there is such a thing as a 'general revolation' IS an attack on the very foundation on which all of science is based. you say that science is limited because you can't know everything, in an infinite universe there will always be something else to see, somewhere you haven't been. however there are different facets of science, there is the accumilation of empirical facts (information like the number/position of moons around planets in the sol system), which will never be complete for the aforementioned reason. There is the developement of technology which will probably keep improving indefinitely within the limits of what is physicaly posible. then there is the laws wich govern the world we live in, things like gravity and electromagnetism. these laws govern everything that happens in the universe and there is currently no reason why these laws may not be fully and completly understood. In this respect science might at some future point become effectively perfect, all the information needed to describe and predict any process or event will be enshrined in the laws of physics, the information needed to designe any device possible will also be known. and while we are not there yet there is no way of knowing when (or if) we will get to this point. at some point in the future I suspect the only interesting things left in the universe will be other life forms and there socierties. any natural phenomena will have been described and observed completly.
This revelation of more moons than previously held is another example of the limitation of relying on our knowledge.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by ChurlantAnd you still haven't managed to give us the name of even one scientist who actually has "absolute faith" in what has been or will be revealed.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Absolute faith in what has been revealed (or can be revealed) by the scientific method for life applications is foolishness. Reason: knowledge which is informed by such method is limited, and presently more is unknown than known. History has taught us that our limited knowledge is often times wrong--- at times, ver ...[text shortened]... nd yet it is only through our scientific knowledge that these moons were discovered.
-JC
Are you trying to be cute, or have you truly missed every entry of this thread? Why do you assume it is my responsibility to provide the name of a scientist who holds such a view, when I never posited that any held the same? Go back and read what has been charged; here's a good starting point:
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46121&page=2
This is not a limitation, no matter how much you try and twist it, but a strength of the method.
While you may (wrongly) claim that the errors inherent within the scientific method are actually strengths, you likely will not find one credible scientist who would agree with the view. You may as well say that the 'error' in the trial-and-error method is a necessary evil... and we all know how you guys feel about that.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks for the story: it was, um, fun! Out of curiousity, though, what's an "anathomer?"
really. Galliao discovered, with his telescope that Jupiter had 4 moons that went round it. disproving that all the objects in the solar system do not orbit the earth. the fact that subsequently with bigger better telescopes we have detected many more moons of jupiter does not take anthing away from his discovery, and I suspect that if you could go back ...[text shortened]... ere socierties. any natural phenomena will have been described and observed completly.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by amannionFreaky, I've come to occasionally have a grudging respect for your point of view, but this statment is idiotic.
Absolute faith in what has been revealed (or can be revealed) by the scientific method for life applications is foolishness. Reason: knowledge which is informed by such method is limited, and presently more is unknown than known. History has taught us that our limited knowledge is often times wrong--- at times, very wrong.
Freaky, I've come to occas ...[text shortened]... med by such method is limited[/i]
What does this mean and how do you arrive at this statement?[/b]
Sometimes I surprise myself, even. I think I'm just doing a piss-poor job of expressing a relatively simple observation, given all of the objections. Or maybe instead of a brain fart, my brain suffered from one of them anathomer-thingies.
knowldege which is informed by such method is limited
What does this mean and how do you arrive at this statement?
Let's take the Hubbel/Baade/Sandage situation by way of example. Assume an argument was made against the veracity of a Genesis account based on Hubbel's dating of the universe. Anyone who was given the then-current scientific information as part of their considerations would have been uninformed. Conversely, anyone who was taught--- from the Bible--- of a young earth would have been equally uninformed.
Then Baade comes along, revising the age, followed by Sandage, etc., etc., all revising what is known. What was known becomes discarded, replaced by 'new' knowledge. What may have been at odds with biblical accounts now shows complete support for the same. But wait, now science contradicts again, no, sorry, it agrees. Hang on, here's a new one that changes everything... no, we were wrong, it appears the Bible was right, after all. And on and on.
Developed understanding occurs in the biblical aspect, as well. However, what is occuring in the biblical method is a return to the original meaning and intent of the autographs, not a revision of Scripture. While the body of knowledge is certainly being revised (by those who choose to accept it), the Scripture's truth was there all along.
The scientific method uncovers what is there, and it is only our limited abilities which prevent us from complete accuracy and understanding. Just because we error in our conclusions based on incorrect measurements and/or other wrong premises doesn't change the facts/laws/nature of the universe. Those realities are there, simply 'waiting' to be discovered... newly discovered.
The spiritual truths of the Bible are waiting, as well. Sadly, it is a re-discovery.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHwell to start with it should be spelled anathema (I was developing a migrane when I wrote my last post so I apologise for any undue incoherence in it) and I use it to mean something along the lines of 'completely incompatible with...' \
Thanks for the story: it was, um, fun! Out of curiousity, though, what's an "anathomer?"
here is the googled definition although this i think is more the old meaning and not quite the way it is used in current parlance
a·nath·e·ma (ə-năth'ə-mə😉
n., pl. -mas.
A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication.
A vehement denunciation; a curse: “the sound of a witch's anathemas in some unknown tongue” (Nathaniel Hawthorne).
One that is cursed or damned.
One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned: “Essentialism—a belief in natural, immutable sex differences—is anathema to postmodernists, for whom sexuality itself, along with gender, is a ‘social construct’” (Wendy Kaminer).
[Late Latin anathema, doomed offering, accursed thing, from Greek, from anatithenai, anathe-, to dedicate : ana-, ana- + tithenai, to put.]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHspiritual truthes have no meaning to someone who does not belive in spirituality. you obviousely beleive that people are fallible, people obviousely (if such a being exists) miss-understand or ignoor/disbeleive or distort gods message (or everyone would beleive the same thing), and humans wrote the bible. How under these circumstances, even if the origional messages were from god, can you be sure that what they wrote down was accurate. simple differences like 'thou shalt not kill' to 'thou shalt not murder' can make huge differences to the acctual meaning. you can't prove that they got it right, which means that you have to take it on faith that even if these people weren't just making it up that they maneged to enscribe in written language the correct meaning (and that the subsequent translators got it right), which is putting faith in people not god. given that diferent parts of the bible are mutually inconsistent with each other (both on moral and factual grounds) and the known fallability of humans (and there propensity to lie/get stoned) then I would say that faith in what is written in the bible is even more highly missplaced than faith in the existance of the supernatural.
[b]The spiritual truths of the Bible are waiting, as well. Sadly, it is a re-discovery.