Do you agree with these statements?

[SelfSim]

... Such rules of argument postulate that objective truth is beyond our grasp and all thinking is merely relative.

The relativity of what 'truth' means, is not at all beyond our grasp however.

Therefore I like to point out that at times that the facts of history do not always support our analysis of 'reality' because we have a flawed philosophical starting point.

It would also seem flawed to assume 'reality' itself is some form of absolute also, no?

 

[SelfSim]

I object to the usage of the term 'metaphysical'. Given that we cannot establish the definition of a 'natural' world.

Who has been generating these ideas, this terminology.

Umm .. us humans?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Exactly, we have defined natural as examinable...

We have further been told to exclude such matters from debate.

Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.

 

[SelfSim]

... Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.

Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?

I personally don't see where one's religious beliefs (including Atheism) have anything to do with that?

 

[klutedavid]

Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?

I personally don't see where one's religious beliefs (including Atheism) have anything to do with that?

Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a religious belief.

 

[klutedavid]

Exactly, we have defined natural as examinable...

We have further been told to exclude such matters from debate.

Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.

There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all.
(wikipedia)

 

[Speedwell]

If there is, at this time, no credible alternative to speciation. Does that then mean that the concept of the evolution of species is therefore correct?

No, it just means that it has not yet been falsified.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes it does.

It is impossible to propose that any mutation can be a random mutation. The simple reason is that it is impossible to know if random events are even possible.

That kind of vocabulary (random) is not justified.

As used in science, the term "random" merely means "unpredictable." The definition I was taught was "Predictable by no known algorithm." --Sokolnikov & Redheffer (1958) The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering.

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly, we have defined natural as examinable...

We have further been told to exclude such matters from debate.

Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.

How so? Many devoutly theistic scientists hold to these rules as well.

 

[klutedavid]

No, it just means that it has not yet been falsified.

So it has a temporal justification.

 

[Speedwell]

So it has a temporal justification.

It has a provisional justification.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Any Philosophy of Science should admit scientific thinking (at the very minimum)?

I personally don't see where one's religious beliefs (including Atheism) have anything to do with that?

The experimantal method postulated by Carl Popper deals with observable phenomena. This correctly defines the boundary of science. Carl Popper was a Christian.

The metaphysical is beyond the scope of scientific endeavour and rightly so.

This means science is the wrong tool to define the truth of the unseen.

Further as I have pointed out the Philosophy of science excludes absolutes from the rules of argument so participants are required to take an atheistic position.

This very much relates to ones religious persuasion.

Firstly because science by definition cannot comment on such matters.

Secondly because those within the discipline must confine their activities to matters non- metaphysical.

This is why venturing into the study of the 'paranormal' is no longer science.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all.
(wikipedia)

Correct - but the experimental method remains a solid foundation of all science.

 

[Radagast]

Suprisingly, that is not true. We still have creationists in this forum who deny the formation of new species.

I'm guessing they don't realise how many species there are.

 

[Radagast]

because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.

That doesn't follow.

You can accept that "outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen" and still believe in theistic evolution.

 

[Radagast]

How then do you account for the victories of WW2 with Germany being superior in almost every measurable way - and the 6 day war with Israel being ridiculously outnumbered and under equipped.

Nazi Germany had the enormous disadvantage of being led by a madman.

And the outcome of the "6 day war" is not surprising to military historians.

 

[Radagast]

Following these 'rules' the Philosophy of Science requires all participants to hold an atheistic position.

That's not true in the least. Most of the great scientists have been Christian; and today atheists are still a minority among scientists.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That doesn't follow.

You can accept that "outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen" and still believe in theistic evolution.

Of course...

 

[SelfSim]

... Further as I have pointed out the Philosophy of science excludes absolutes from the rules of argument so participants are required to take an atheistic position.

Sorry Carl .. I can't see the consistency there.

Atheism denies the exist of a God, yes? That looks like a pretty big absolute to me .. especially given the lack of evidence for such an exclusion!

Agnosticism is very closely aligned with science .. (but not because of any posited philosophical assumptions, however).

Secondly because those within the discipline must confine their activities to matters non- metaphysical.

Whilst I might agree that science rejects metaphysics, it isn't because of some going-in belief. It is rejected because its untestable and thus categorised as being a belief.
Doing so, doesn't stop science from moving on and testing anything testable .. nor does science have anything to say about what is 'rejected' due to untestability.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Nazi Germany had the enormous disadvantage of being led by a madman.

And the outcome of the "6 day war" is not surprising to military historians.

Do you disagree with what Pavel wrote...

I quote...

I will agree with Carl on Israel etc. If you look at battles, and wars etc. Israel was way way out numbered compared to Germany. Most of the time, on the Western front Germany was facing a 5:1 ratio against them on the ground, while Israel on the other hand was facing something like a 30:1 disadvantage in some of their battles. Israel was in a position where they had to do everything right, as well as have some luck / divine intervention, plus have lots of and lots of aid from the US.. to survive.

But the 30 to 1, ratio is very impressive. It is very hard defending something like a well built fortress with those kind of odds let alone a field of sand dunes.... which is what Israel managed to do.