Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, it's literally what science is.
It's a method we utilize.
No, that maybe could be so if every scientist who ever practiced science was like that, but even that could just be a reflection on the scientists themselves and not the actual method. It is possible for there to be significant differences between an actual method and how it's practiced.
Thanks for your opinions.
In an idealized sense. Real science involves human beings, with all their flaws and failures. Data gets fudged and fabricated, theories are misunderstood, biases keep bad theories from disappearing. The great and powerful Oz is nothing but a man hiding behind the counter.
Among other things.
Yeah, practice and theory are very different animals
uh huh
I noted this with Professor Dave Explains (who was very rude, and I pray for him to seek peace with himself and with those around him, and to calm his tongue) during his debate with Dr. James Tour; I do not understand why a secularist like Dave cannot be kind, respectful, and not demeaning or 'holier than thou' in lieu of contrary opinion. I think a lot more people on CF would be open to secular science if secularists like Dave did not frame creationism as 'illogical,' rather just as a different worldview. In vein of Professor Dave Explains having nothing good to say about Dr. James Tour, I ask you Kylie: what is a good thing you can say about AV, or truthpls, or other creationists who happen to disagree with your proposition? I say this about secularists is that they are wonderful, passionate but misguided people who will help you in a time of need, I cherish them with all my heart as I do all others, they are the most intelligent, logical, and memorable people and I have great respect for that. I have great respect for you too Kylie, as you are all of the previously quoted compliments and more, and even more than that to Our Lord! God bless!
If your point is to say that in general scientists don't always implement or follow the method to perfection, then I'll just repeat that a method not always being perfectly implemented isn't necessarily a reflection on the method itself.
That's a relief; I was afraid you were going to say we know it by the literal inerrancy of Scripture. But what does that have to do with the ontological assumptions (if any) of science, which do not challenge it.
It boils down to whether we regard physicalism as true since it is likely incompatible with Christian notions of God. If everything supervenes on the physical, and the self-suffiicient "stuff" is material, there's no room for God. The failure to recognize that these ontological definitions are taken in science as defined true(and not possible to demonstrate false) then God is by definition not real within a scientific model. If we believe that God is what is self-sufficient, and that He intervenes in the "physical" then we must regard scientific modeling as suspect in some way.
It's not that the method isn't always properly followed, it's that the most it can hope to achieve is a consensus opinion. What is "true" in science is just what is popularly believed to be true. Which I think is irresponsible to throw around words like "fact" and "objective" and similar terms that imply science provides us with some kind of true knowledge that exceeds the subjective limits that lead us to be critical of philosophy. There is a pretense that scientific findings are true, as if somehow the act of measuring removes the epistemic and ethical issues that are so common.
Not at all, just the metaphysics that is embedded in scientific definitions because of a general resistance to philosophic discussion. It is assumed that the what physics is supposed to be studying is ontologically basic and that all explanations will ultimately boil down to some physical fact. My issue isn't with research methods, it's linguistic. We speak about science in ontological terms, which gives pride of place to atheistic ontologies. Scientific theories are fruit of a poisoned tree, because the foundational assumptions exclude an interventionist God by definition. The trouble is, if we try to talk about these philosophic issues the wagons get circled. Scientists are just modern day prophets of Ba'al casting lots and claiming they can predict the future. The doublespeak of acknowledging that science has no interest in "truth", while maintaining that science is based on "facts" is a form of deceptive talk. My interest is not to criticize a methodical approach to building theories, it's simply to call into question the foundations those theories are built on. It's a mighty tower, but it's built on a poor foundation.
