Definition of True Science?

12+ year old thread.

sfs said:

12+ year old thread.

Click to expand...

The subject came up in another thread.

sfs said:

12+ year old thread.

Click to expand...

You know, sometimes it can be rather interesting to bring these threads back to attention. That doesn't necessarily mean revive them, or try to carry on a conversation with a person from a decade ago.

But I find it amusing to look back at my own old posts and think: "Yep, he was quite right back then. Smart guy, this Freodin."

Vance said:

In a recent post (the OP of a thread which has now been closed), someone described Real Science as:

Click to expand...

It is in some cases difficult to tell what is science or not science, but it is always easy to tell what is not science. We already got a word for non-sciences - pseudosciences - so there is no need to invent new words to know what is not science.

The point is, the concept of "true science" is a red herring. There is no need to invent new word such as "true science" to be able to separate "science" from "true science". "true science" is a clever semantic trick from YEC, so they escape the all to obvious fallacy that some part of science is not science.

By inventing a new word YEC's can both eat the cake and keep the cake - they can agree on what is science but disagree on what is "true science"- obviously the aim is to be able to call evolution science but not a "true" science. Soon every YEC's will - in their never ending evolving use of language - all learn to utter their new holy mantra "Evolution is not a true science!".

In a short feature we will need to print a complete dictionary just to be able to keep track on all English words YEC's have redefined.

Because semantics is the only thing YEC's can argue with since they don't have any really evidence to bring to the table. That is why all argument with YEC always ends up in tiresome discussion about definitions, leading nowhere but to stand stop. (and thus the YEC can claim, if not a win, at least a "draw" - again sematics).

Freodin said:

You know, sometimes it can be rather interesting to bring these threads back to attention. That doesn't necessarily mean revive them, or try to carry on a conversation with a person from a decade ago.

But I find it amusing to look back at my own old posts and think: "Yep, he was quite right back then. Smart guy, this Freodin."

Click to expand...

"If I only knew now what I knew then. . ."

Freodin said:

You know, sometimes it can be rather interesting to bring these threads back to attention. That doesn't necessarily mean revive them, or try to carry on a conversation with a person from a decade ago.

But I find it amusing to look back at my own old posts and think: "Yep, he was quite right back then. Smart guy, this Freodin."

Click to expand...

Oh no, not the posts from my first week on this site. Oh, the rudeness that is me DX

joshua 1 9 said:

What you describe sounds more like the scientific method. The word science in the Bible is also translated knowledge, at least in the book of Daniel1:4: "God gave them knowledge H4093 and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams".

04093 // edm // madda` // mad-daw' // or
// edm // madda` // mad-dah' //

from 03045 ; TWOT - 848g; n m

AV - knowledge 4, thought 1, science 1; 6

1) knowledge, thought
1a) knowledge
1b) mind, thought, place of knowledge

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Click to expand...

Also, before I forget

PsychoSarah said:

Oh no, not the posts from my first week on this site. Oh, the rudeness that is me DX

Click to expand...

It can also be interesting to see how much - or in what way - you changed over the years.

It is just that, in my case, I find that I didn't change much.

PsychoSarah said:

Also, before I forget

Click to expand...

Bow before the Great and Powerful TRRRRRRRRRIXIE!

sfs said:

12+ year old thread.

Click to expand...

Why do we always hear this kind of thing every time an old OP is revived? what difference does it make how old the OP is if it askes a question or proposes something? even if the poster is no longer around the question still remains, should we only be allowed to ask questions or make proposals once? can't we still continue the discussion?

Freodin said:

It can also be interesting to see how much - or in what way - you changed over the years.

It is just that, in my case, I find that I didn't change much.

Click to expand...

I haven't changed drastically over the years, besides getting more mature, but before I posted in these subforums (Philosophy, Ethics, Physical Sciences, etc.) I was posting in ones for nonbelievers to ask questions about Christianity. Suffice to say, I shall never be present in those sub forums again. Not out of shame, but because I did not conduct myself well. It's not about debating what people claim about their faith, which is pure torment for an opinionated person such as myself, and I ended up pushing my opinions anyways.

Freodin said:

Bow before the Great and Powerful TRRRRRRRRRIXIE!

Click to expand...

I would have never guessed you were an MLP fan.

Jay Follett said:

Why do we always hear this kind of thing every time an old OP is revived? what difference does it make how old the OP is if it askes a question or proposes something? even if the poster is no longer around the question still remains, should we only be allowed to ask questions or make proposals once? can't we still continue the discussion?

Click to expand...

You are always free to ask any question you like. But continuing a discussion with people who have long since left seems pretty pointless.